[Weapons Update] Comprehensive Suggestions for Weapon Balance, Armor, and Shields

[petlahk]

Preface
Over the past several days Ithirahad, Nosajimiki, NaStral, and several others of us have been discussing the weapons update. Overall, general consensus amongst us is that the weapons update is a great update that is taking significant steps to improve the game. However, we also believe that there are several things that could be done to improve the weapons update such that it is more interesting, and will serve the game better in the long run.

This post is a compilation of such ideas. I will try my best to give attribution to the people who originally suggested these ideas. However, if I have compiled your idea into this thread and failed to give proper attribution, please feel free to contact me and I will edit your name into the post.

Balancing Armor
One of the main things that we've noticed during testing is that armor is still somewhat weak. With changes already done to the code by the devs however, it is relatively easy for them to tweak the values. The following are two or three propose methods of doing so.

Overall, the new weapon system provides for more adequate scaling of armor. However, the numbers are a bit tough to work out. There are two elements to this section. The first is the idea that HP per armor type should scale logarithmically in relation to it's mass. And, the second pertains to actual game calculations.

Scaling Armor Based on Mass:HP
(Nosajimki) (petlahk)

The first idea is that basic armor should have a mass:HP ratio of 1:1, Standard 2:4, and Advanced 3:27. The idea here is that advanced would be significantly more viable than basic for defending against high-alpha or high-damage attacks than it currently is. One of the main factors contributing to it's non-viability is that it's mass and production costs are so high compared to the other two armors. Under this system the numbers for armor would look something like this:

Mass HP​

Basic: .05 200 (Base Values)
Standard: .10 800
Advanced: .15 5,400

This first system might go a long way to balancing out the armor types against each other and the weapons in terms of viability and defense. First and foremost, it addresses the longstanding complaint that the mass of advanced armor compared to the defense it provides is so low to the point of being almost pointless to use. However, it also scales the defense values in such a way as to match weapon damage values. Weapon damage values scale exponentially, so, to fully address the armor issue it only makes sense that the armor should scale in a similar manner.

Scaling Armor Based on Layers per Type
(Nosajimki)

The second idea is that armor should scale exponentially based on layer per armor type. This would mean that for 3 layers of basic armor the total in-line HP value of those 3 layers would be 600 HP based on an exponent of 1 and the current armor values.

Spoiler: Original Text - Edited in Nosa's comment for better representation of his actual ideas.

# Layers Current HP Scaling Total HP
Basic: 3 200 * 3^1 600
Standard: 3 400 * 3^2 3600
Advanced: 3 1,000 * 3^3 27,000

The advantage of this system over the first system is that armor will always scale with the weapons and with ship size. However, also under this system it might be the case that armor scales too well.

It is a matter for discussion as to which of the two systems makes more sense, or, whether both should be used.

So I did some math studies on this topic and I've determined the best way to implement the above suggestion is in damage reduction AFTER your hit block takes damage (to make sure you can chip away armor with dps), but before Acid begins, but allow acid to happen at massively reduced damage. So if you hit armor with a 5 million damage alpha weapon, you do the 1000 damage to take out the first block, then reduce how ever much damage based on armor thickness, then do acid damage with what is left.

• 
  
  
  • All armor will have the same HP/Mass.
  • Basic armor only blocks the sum of the armor in a row
  • Standard does that, but squaring the number of blocks in a row
  • Advanced does that, but cubing the number of blocks in a row

blocks thick | 1 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Armor | 200 | 400 | 1k | 2k | 4k
Standard Armor | 600 | 2.4k | 15k | 60k | 240k
Adv Armor | 1k | 8k | 125k | 1m | 8m

As for the more rare case of composite armors, you could use an averaged exponent/ armor value:

[Advanced],[Basic],[Basic],[Basic],[Standard]
Exponent Average([3],[1],[1],[1],[2]) = 1.6
Armor Average ([1000],[200],[200],[200],[600]) = 440
This composite armor would have about 5.8k reduction such that it scales with pure armor types without being useless or OP

So the formula would be:
$damageReduction = $armorDepth ^ $exponentAverage * $armorAverage

While these numbers look high, it is important to keep in mind that a ship that could reasonably carry 5 layers of adv armor can easily dish out shots over 125k damage, but that at that scale not so much that 125k reduction would be inconsequential.

Also of note is that only advanced armor truly scales with size. More primative armors are more for options to create lighter hulls

Reworking the Kinetic/EM/Heat damage system
The main criticism that has been shared surrounding the current system of tertiaries (Kinetic/EM/Heat) is that the rock/paper/scissors element as current designed and planned is very boring.

Currently, it is essentially just the tertiary weapons modules against the tertiary chamber effects. This is a very frustrating and boring dichotomy. It offers nothing in terms of interesting physical design, and forces players to take up valuable chamber RC for a system that would be more interesting if applied between Weapons VS Armor and Shields rather than Weapons VS Chambers.

There are three pieces to this section. The first will discuss how and why kinetic, EM, and heat damage should be applied to armor and shields rather than to chambers. The second will discuss ways in which the chamber effects could be retained but made more interesting. And the third will outline a minor change to the current basic effect values applied to weapon damage.

Weapons VS Armor and Shields
(petlahk, Ithirahad, Nosajimki)

As outlined above, tertiary effect damage being countered by chambers, and chambers alone is very boring. It offers no ability to use the blocks themselves to design your defense in the way that we've all become accustomed to in Starmade.

The idea has several parts:
- Armor should block primarily EM damage and take damage primarily from Kinetic by default.
- Shields should block primarily Kinetic damage and take damage primarily from EM by default.
- Heat damage should deal balanced damage (50/50) when striking either armor or shields by default.

This would retain the main portions of the old tertiary system, while also simplifying the system to make more sense. By doing this, weapons could be designed to counteract specific systems, and systems could be reworked to counteract damage types that are unexpected in a way that is much more interesting. Currently, it's basically just a toss up as to whether your weapon will be blocked by a really strong Kinetic damage system or not. There is no basic indicator of what should block what by default, or why Shields are better/different than Armor.

The idea that shields are susceptible to energy based damage, and armor susceptible to kinetic is hardly a new one. And the addition of this change - in conjunction with the latter two parts - would serve to both flesh out the world and to make combat much more interesting.

Weapon Chamber Modifications
(Ithirahad)

Having chambers as a method to defend against different damage types isn't a bad idea. However, the current implementation is, to reiterate, frustratingly boring. In conjunction with the above ideas, chambers should still work to tweak defenses against different tertiaries, however should do so slightly differently.

After about an hour and a half of debate Ithirahad and I settled on the following default values:
- Armor Blocks: 0% of Kinetic Damage, 90% of EM Damage, 50% of Heat Damage.
- Shields Block: 90% of Kinetic Damage, 0% of EM Damage, 50% of Heat Damage.

These values would be the defaults. Armor would be good at defending against EM, and Shields good at defending against Kinetic damage.

However, Ithirahad and I disagree about how exactly to restructure the chamber trees.

Ithirahad proposes that armor have only one enhancement to tertiary defense. That defense being an enhancement of up to 50% on Kinetic. He also proposes that the shield tree be added one tertiary defense enhancement, that being an enhancement to heat defense for a maximum of +25%. Ithirahad's system is simpler to implement and understand than mine. And, also it gives heat defense to only shields for the purposes of blocking star damage. If the heat defense were to block star damage then it would make the most sense that that defense only be applied to shields.

Ith's Example Tree. Note that the base values are not applied to the first chamber, but are defaults:

I propose that the chamber system be based around a system of shifting one value to another, and the option to add extra defense against heat damage to both. Under my system the shield tree could switch all or part of it's 90% Kinetic damage block to blocking EM damage. The armor tree would do the opposite, and could switch all or part of it's 90% EM damage block to blocking Kinetic damage. Both trees would have up to a +25% increase to heat damage mitigation. My system is certainly more complicated, however I believe that it also offers more flexibility in terms of modifying your defense. For instance, tertiary defense values could be split for armor, but not for shields. Or, both shields and armor could block 90% of kinetic damage, but be vulnerable to EM. I believe that my system would result in more interesting gameplay despite it being slightly more complicated, and having potentially higher RC costs and chamber weight.

Note: I have changed my default values to 40% mitigation of heat on both Armor and Shields. Also, the maximum value is now 65% after the same +25% increase.

My Example Tree. Note that the base values are not applied to the first chamber, but are defaults:

In either case. The modifications to the chamber tree would work perfectly in conjunction to adding different types of basic defense to both Shields and Armor. Some weapons would be good against Shields, and Some against Armor. This would serve to preserve the sort of Ion VS Shields dichotomy present in the previous weapons iteration. However, again, would result in much more interesting gameplay choices than straight buffs to armor defense VS all tertiaries.

Minor Change to Base Weapon Values
Currently, the weapons deal basic kinetic, EM, and heat damage as follows:

Kinetic EM Heat
Cannon: 1.5 1.0 .5
Beam: .5 1.0 1.5
Missile: .5 1.5 1.0

As it stands currently EM is the go-to choice to block for any ship builder. This makes the choice for chamber usage obvious and uninteresting. Even if the above two sections are not implemented at all (which I sincerely hope they are) a few of us would like to suggest having each weapon type deal tertiary values of .5, 1.0, and 1.5 in various categories, with no value present twice in either.

(Note: I am aware that these values may have to do with how Cannons and Cannon recoil works. If that's the case then I think it makes sense to keep them the way they are. Though perhaps the numbers could be switched between Heat and EM to take into account the above suggestions.)

Other Proposal Items
There are also a set of other proposal items that could be used to serve the purpose of balance and contributing to an interesting and satisfying weapons update.

These proposal items are tangentially related to the above items, however are smaller and are not major parts of the key changes proposed above.

Increasing Missile Reload Times
(NaStral)

Consensus has been generally reached that the current missile reload times are far too fast for adequately serving the purpose of balancing missiles. As it currently stands the reload time for one missile is currently between 2 and 2.5 seconds. This barely compensates for the high-yield of missiles. The proposal is that the missile reload time be bumped to between 30 and 60 seconds per missile to better serve the purpose of making them a tactical high-risk high-reward weapon.

Along with this suggestion is a suggestion to possibly slightly increase the missile capacity per missile block. As well as a suggestion by Ithirahad to consider adding a block that can be used to increase missile reload time at the cost of high power consumption.

Two New Specialized Armor Blocks
Also, two specialized armor blocks have been proposed.

The first is a really expensive, really high HP armor block intended specifically for filling on very large capital ships. This would help to cut down on the layering and building time required for building large ships. It would not be a full set of new colours. Only a single set of full shapes with a nice texture that could be used for aesthetics on the exterior if necessary. (I cannot currently remember who proposed this.)

The second was my idea for a fighter-oriented armor block. It would have the weight of basic armor, but an HP between Standard and Advanced armor (I personally lean toward the same HP as advanced). This block would be very expensive to manufacture. Possibly just as, if not more expensive to manufacture than advanced armor. It would serve to bridge the gap between fighter craft needing to be lightweight yet still be able to soak up damage with their armor. This block would also offer a somewhat viable alternative to using shields on fighter craft. Again, this would not be a full set of colours, only a single set of full shapes with a nice texture that looks good on the exterior.

Tertiary Damage Patterns
(NaStral)

NaStral proposed that weapons with tertiary computers might slightly modify their damage patterns in addition to the current combinations and the planned ability to modify weapon shape depending on how it's built.

The idea is that on armor EM would look sorta lightning-bolt-like, like what a microwaved CD looks like. Kinetic would retain it's punch through look. And Heat would appear to burn off the surface layer of armor.

However this proposal might be at odds with how the secondary system works, and over-complicate coding and calculations.

Spoiler: Edit Changelog

4/28/2018

2:24 PM GMT-6: Changed the proposed basic values for my chamber tree system for Heat from 50%-75% to 40%-65%

4/29/2018

9:41 AM GMT-6: Put the original text for the armor scaling section into a spoiler and folded Nosa's actual thoughts into the post. Also, changed the first block scaling idea to better represent the fact that it was my interpretation of exponent scaling on armor.

 

[God mode]

Weapons VS Armor and Shields
(petlahk, Ithirahad, Nosajimki)

As outlined above, tertiary effect damage being countered by chambers, and chambers alone is very boring. It offers no ability to use the blocks themselves to design your defense in the way that we've all become accustomed to in Starmade.

The idea has several parts:
- Armor should block primarily EM damage and take damage primarily from Kinetic by default.
- Shields should block primarily Kinetic damage and take damage primarily from EM by default.
- Heat damage should deal balanced damage (50/50) when striking either armor or shields by default.

If heat damage is applied equally it might as well be removed as it would serve no purpose.

Instead of just shields/armor, have shields/armor/systems.

EM would be strong against shields, weak against armor, and normal against systems.
Kinetic would be strong against armor, weak against shields, and normal against systems.
Heat would be strong against systems, weak against armor, and normal against shields.

Armor is strong against 2 out of 3 damage types so it would be useful in more situations.
Since systems are weak against heat but armor is strong against heat, there would be more incentive to build armor blocks between or within systems to mitigate damage, as a third layer of defense behind shields and hull. This could be in the form of interiors.

 

[petlahk]

If heat damage is applied equally it might as well be removed as it would serve no purpose.

Instead of just shields/armor, have shields/armor/systems.

EM would be strong against shields, weak against armor, and normal against systems.
Kinetic would be strong against armor, weak against shields, and normal against systems.
Heat would be strong against systems, weak against armor, and normal against shields.

Armor is strong against 2 out of 3 damage types so it would be useful in more situations.
Since systems are weak against heat but armor is strong against heat, there would be more incentive to build armor blocks between or within systems to mitigate damage, as a third layer of defense behind shields and hull. This could be in the form of interiors.

Interesting point.

The idea behind the having the heat be 50/50 was that no matter what weapons setup the other guy was using against you, he could still deal some damage to both your armor and shields, even if your armor and shields were heavily optimized against his particular weapons setup. This way he might still lose if your shields and armor are optimized against his setup, but he won't lose instantly by default, ya know?

I do still sorta see your point. But, at the same time it'd also be really hard to make it be kin/em/heat VS shields/armor/systems due to how systems are treated traditionally in the past. Systems get absolutely no defensive tree in the defensive chambers. Also, if they've reached your systems and are blowing them to shreds, haven't you already lost? Shouldn't the changes be around making defenses more valid before they reach your systems?

Again. Interesting point and idea. I'm just not so sure how it'd work.

 

[God mode]

The idea behind the having the heat be 50/50 was that no matter what weapons setup the other guy was using against you, he could still deal some damage to both your armor and shields, even if your armor and shields were heavily optimized against his particular weapons setup. This way he might still lose if your shields and armor are optimized against his setup, but he won't lose instantly by default, ya know?

This makes no sense.

A weapon that deals primarily EM or kinetic damage can be made to deal equal amounts of EM and kinetic using the effect modules.
Using your 0% and 90% examples, if you shoot this hybrid weapon at shields you'll do 50% EM and 5% kinetic for a total of 55%. If you shoot at hull, you'll do the same amount of total damage.
If instead you use a weapon with heat damage, you can only do 50% damage.

This is without any defensive chambers.

Using Ith's fully-upgraded chambers, a hybrid weapon does 30% to armor and 55% to shields, and a heat weapon does 50% to armor and 37.5% to shields, so heat is only marginally better depending on the situation.
Using your fully-upgraded chambers, a hybrid weapon does 55% to both armor and shields, and a heat weapon does 37.5% to both armor and shields, so heat is much worse.

Obviously some kind of thermal damage should be kept, but you can't just have it be a combination of the other types of damage.

I do still sorta see your point. But, at the same time it'd also be really hard to make it be kin/em/heat VS shields/armor/systems due to how systems are treated traditionally in the past. Systems get absolutely no defensive tree in the defensive chambers.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Reactors do have the failsafe chamber, but regardless, defensive chambers for systems aren't necessary and would only be a bonus.

Also, if they've reached your systems and are blowing them to shreds, haven't you already lost?

No. It depends on the ship.

Shouldn't the changes be around making defenses more valid before they reach your systems?

The changes should be around making defenses more interesting in general. If you want to concentrate all your defenses on your hull so that your systems are less likely to take any damage at all, you can absolutely do that. If instead you want to allocate some of that defense towards durability when already damaged, such as from an alpha strike, you can do that too. More interesting.

 

[petlahk]

Using your fully-upgraded chambers, a hybrid weapon does 55% to both armor and shields, and a heat weapon does 37.5% to both armor and shields, so heat is much worse.

I'm not entirely sure that's quite right. In my system it's more about switching Kin to EM or EM to Kin. So if Armor moves 40% of it's EM reduction over to Kin reduction then the values would be 50% EM reduction, 40% Kin reduction, and 50% Heat. Or, if it's plus the heat 75% heat. So, if you had a weapon that was entirely Heat damage then yeah, 25% is blocked. But if it were say 50% heat and 50% kin then the majority of that kin damage would make it through while the majority of the heat reduction was blocked. And if it were the default values of 90% reduction and 0% kin reduction combined with 75% heat reduction then all of that kin on the weapon makes it through.

Also,

A weapon that deals primarily EM or kinetic damage can be made to deal equal amounts of EM and kinetic using the effect modules.

I don't think this is possible considering that you can't attach more than one tertiary to a weapon. At least, not easily possible. But, if it were say, a 100% beam/beam weapon with 50% tertiary effect of heat. Then it *should* still retain a decent chunk of both it's EM damage and Kinetic damage. So the Kin bit is blocked mostly by shields while the EM bit still deals damage, and the Heat bit 50% of it's heat damage. But the values are switched at armor.

Really, the only real scenario where your weapons would be almost completely useless in either Ith's or my system would be if you had dedicated all of one weapons power to a specific tertiary effect using 100% ratio of tertiary. Which, is sorta the point innit? There are advantages to building a weapon 100% tertiary, but disadvantages as well. You could have a weapon optomized against the default shields, or the default armor. Or maybe figure out what the enemy's chambers are an design a ship specifically to counter it. But that's sorta the point of the system innit? Both my and Ith's system are designed so that the majority of at least one damage type will always damage either armor or shields. It's just much more up to design choices which one that is. And it's more interesting trade-offs IMO. Overall, having a 50/40/75 allocation on armor would probably be weaker than a 0/90/75 allocation. But it really depends on what the enemy brings to the field.

The changes should be around making defenses more interesting in general. If you want to concentrate all your defenses on your hull so that your systems are less likely to take any damage at all, you can absolutely do that. If instead you want to allocate some of that defense towards durability when already damaged, such as from an alpha strike, you can do that too. More interesting.

I think this does make it more interesting. It's just tough to explain and I'm a bit tired out, and should really not be staying up this late with class in the morning (but that's my fault.).

Edit/Addendum: I just want to make it clear that every weapon and weapon combo deals some percentage of all three tertiary effects, Kinetic, EM, and Heat. So the only reason your weapon system should be optimized fully for say, Kinetic, would be if you slapped a bunch of Kinetic tertiaries on it.

Edit/Addendum #2:
I think I've worked out the math.

I think that the damage allocation percentage equation is:
Total Damage/(3/Value)

So a base cannon only array that deals 1,000 damage should deal
500 Kinetic Damage, 166 Heat Damage, and 333 EM.
At values of 1.5, 0.5, and 1.0 respectively.

So, if you attached a 50% EM tertiary to it. I think it would then deal:
250 Kinetic Damage, 83 Heat Damage, and 666 EM damage.

And 50% Heat tertiary:
250 Kinetic damage, 583 Heat Damage, and 166.5 EM damage.

Of course. I'm gonna wait for the devs to reply. But I think this is how the math works out. I think I'm finally go sleep now though.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Scaling Armor Based on Layers per Type
(Nosajimki)

The second idea is that armor should scale exponentially based on layer per armor type. This would mean that for 3 layers of basic armor the total in-line HP value of those 3 layers would be 600 HP based on an exponent of 1 and the current armor values.

# Layers Current HP Scaling Total HP
Basic: 3 200 * 3^1 600
Standard: 3 400 * 3^2 3600
Advanced: 3 1,000 * 3^3 27,000

The advantage of this system over the first system is that armor will always scale with the weapons and with ship size. However, also under this system it might be the case that armor scales too well.

It is a matter for discussion as to which of the two systems makes more sense, or, whether both should be used.

So I did some math studies on this topic and I've determined the best way to implement the above suggestion is in damage reduction AFTER your hit block takes damage (to make sure you can chip away armor with dps), but before Acid begins, but allow acid to happen at massively reduced damage. So if you hit armor with a 5 million damage alpha weapon, you do the 1000 damage to take out the first block, then reduce how ever much damage based on armor thickness, then do acid damage with what is left.

• All armor will have the same HP/Mass.
• Basic armor only blocks the sum of the armor in a row
• Standard does that, but squaring the number of blocks in a row
• Advanced does that, but cubing the number of blocks in a row

blocks thick | 1 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Armor | 200 | 400 | 1k | 2k | 4k
Standard Armor | 600 | 2.4k | 15k | 60k | 240k
Adv Armor | 1k | 8k | 125k | 1m | 8m

As for the more rare case of composite armors, you could use an averaged exponent/ armor value:

[Advanced],[Basic],[Basic],[Basic],[Standard]
Exponent Average([3],[1],[1],[1],[2]) = 1.6
Armor Average ([1000],[200],[200],[200],[600]) = 440
This composite armor would have about 5.8k reduction such that it scales with pure armor types without being useless or OP

So the formula would be:
$damageReduction = $armorDepth ^ $exponentAverage * $armorAverage

While these numbers look high, it is important to keep in mind that a ship that could reasonably carry 5 layers of adv armor can easily dish out shots over 125k damage, but that at that scale not so much that 125k reduction would be inconsequential.

Also of note is that only advanced armor truly scales with size. More primative armors are more for options to create lighter hulls

 

[Raisinbat]

Am i reading this right?

So I did some math studies on this topic and I've determined the best way to implement the above suggestion is in damage reduction AFTER your hit block takes damage (to make sure you can chip away armor with dps)

So you waffle your weapons for 1000 damage, stack the outputs behind each other and 20.000 damage will go through 20 advanced armor with this system? If yes, why on earth would you ever do anything else...

Adv Armor | 1k | 8k | 125k | 1m | 8m

So if you fit 20 block thick advanced armor at the front of your fighter you need 8mil+ damage weapons to kill a fighter...?

 

[Nosajimiki]

Derp! you are absolutely right... nix that idea.

Perhaps just scaling armor blocks by larger increments and stages makes more since?

.05 mass = 200 hp
.12 mass = 1000 hp
.25 mass = 5000 hp
1.0 mass = 50,000 hp
5.0 mass = 500,000 hp

dunno getting tired.

 

[God mode]

I'm not entirely sure that's quite right. In my system it's more about switching Kin to EM or EM to Kin. So if Armor moves 40% of it's EM reduction over to Kin reduction then the values would be 50% EM reduction, 40% Kin reduction, and 50% Heat. Or, if it's plus the heat 75% heat. So, if you had a weapon that was entirely Heat damage then yeah, 25% is blocked. But if it were say 50% heat and 50% kin then the majority of that kin damage would make it through while the majority of the heat reduction was blocked. And if it were the default values of 90% reduction and 0% kin reduction combined with 75% heat reduction then all of that kin on the weapon makes it through.

The amounts in kinetic vs EMP are irrelevant if the weapon deals 50% kinetic and 50% EMP, as long as there is an average 45% reduction the weapon will deal 55% damage.

Taking your example values:

40% kinetic, 50% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% EM damage: 55% total damage dealt
40% kinetic, 50% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% heat damage: 55% total damage dealt
40% kinetic, 50% EM, 75% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% heat damage: 42.5% total damage dealt

0% kinetic, 90% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% EM damage: 55% total damage dealt
0% kinetic, 90% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% heat damage: 75% total damage dealt
0% kinetic, 90% EM, 75% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% heat damage: 62.5% total damage dealt

90% kinetic, 0% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% EM damage: 55% total damage dealt
90% kinetic, 0% EM, 50% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% heat damage: 30% total damage dealt
90% kinetic, 0% EM, 75% heat reduction + 50% kinetic, 50% heat damage: 17.5% total damage dealt

If you know your opponent's defenses, obviously a pure kinetic or EM weapon is best. If you don't, 50% EM and 50% kinetic is best, not heat nor any combination using heat. Using a kinetic and EM weapon, you can expect to do 55% total damage. Using kinetic and heat, in the best case scenario of only 50% heat reduction you can expect to do an average of 52.5% damage, and in the worst case with 75% heat reduction your expected damage is 40%.

I don't think this is possible considering that you can't attach more than one tertiary to a weapon. At least, not easily possible. But, if it were say, a 100% beam/beam weapon with 50% tertiary effect of heat. Then it *should* still retain a decent chunk of both it's EM damage and Kinetic damage. So the Kin bit is blocked mostly by shields while the EM bit still deals damage, and the Heat bit 50% of it's heat damage. But the values are switched at armor.

Really, the only real scenario where your weapons would be almost completely useless in either Ith's or my system would be if you had dedicated all of one weapons power to a specific tertiary effect using 100% ratio of tertiary. Which, is sorta the point innit? There are advantages to building a weapon 100% tertiary, but disadvantages as well. You could have a weapon optomized against the default shields, or the default armor. Or maybe figure out what the enemy's chambers are an design a ship specifically to counter it. But that's sorta the point of the system innit? Both my and Ith's system are designed so that the majority of at least one damage type will always damage either armor or shields. It's just much more up to design choices which one that is. And it's more interesting trade-offs IMO. Overall, having a 50/40/75 allocation on armor would probably be weaker than a 0/90/75 allocation. But it really depends on what the enemy brings to the field.

A more realistic weapon split between 3 damages types will just fall within the extremes:

45% kinetic, 45% EM, 50% heat reduction + 40% kinetic, 40% EM, 20% heat damage: 54% total damage dealt
45% kinetic, 45% EM, 50% heat reduction + 33% kinetic, 33% EM, 34% heat damage: 53.3% total damage dealt
45% kinetic, 45% EM, 75% heat reduction + 33% kinetic, 33% EM, 34% heat damage: 44.8% total damage dealt

The heat damage effect is clearly useless under this model.

 

[petlahk]

The heat damage effect is clearly useless under this model.

I'm sorry. I'm just gonna put together a different chart because I'm having trouble understanding yours.

I mean, first we gotta remember that the percentages of the armor are percentages applied to the percentage points of the weapons. And second, the percentages on the armor are applied to the weapon percentages differently.

So.

Weapon - Base Cannon:
Kinetic 50% (1.5), Heat 16% (0.5), EM 33% (1.0)

So, apply that to a shield with:
40% Kinetic block, 75% Heat Block, 50% EM block

30% points Of kinetic damage makes it through.
4% points of Heat Makes it through.
16.5% points of #M makes it through.

50.5% of the total weapon deals damage to the shield.
If that weapon were then a 1,000 damage weapon then 495 damage is still dealt to the shields.

Two things. The first is that prolly at least one of the chambers to each should be a straight damage mitigation bugg (heat).
The second, again, is that the point of using heat in this system isn't to deal high damage, but the point of using heat in this system is to ensure that you always deal *some damage* to *both*.

The point of heat is that even if you're dealing, say... 12.5-25% points heat with a heat focused weapon like... base damage beam to a heat chambered shield & armor with between 50% and 75% mitigation. That's still a gauranteed 12.5% or 25% points to both.

And that goes all the way up to 25% points - 50% points on both if you're using a 100% chambered heat weapon. Which is a guaranteed 250-500 damage on a 100% chambered heat weapon of 1,000 total damage.

The point is that the benfit of chambering heat is that you're gauranteed to deal damage. Not that that damage is supposed to be high. It's the low risk-medium reward option. With the others being high risk for either high reward or very little reward.

S, at the end of my thought process. No, it is not pointless to chamber heat under my system, even if the max of 75% heat damage on both is retained.

Percentage points is far different than percentages. You gotta distinguish.

 

[God mode]

I'm sorry. I'm just gonna put together a different chart because I'm having trouble understanding yours.

I mean, first we gotta remember that the percentages of the armor are percentages applied to the percentage points of the weapons. And second, the percentages on the armor are applied to the weapon percentages differently.

So.

Weapon - Base Cannon:
Kinetic 50% (1.5), Heat 16% (0.5), EM 33% (1.0)

So, apply that to a shield with:
40% Kinetic block, 75% Heat Block, 50% EM block

30% points Of kinetic damage makes it through.
4% points of Heat Makes it through.
16.5% points of #M makes it through.

50.5% of the total weapon deals damage to the shield.
If that weapon were then a 1,000 damage weapon then 495 damage is still dealt to the shields.

Two things. The first is that prolly at least one of the chambers to each should be a straight damage mitigation bugg (heat).
The second, again, is that the point of using heat in this system isn't to deal high damage, but the point of using heat in this system is to ensure that you always deal *some damage* to *both*.

The point of heat is that even if you're dealing, say... 12.5-25% points heat with a heat focused weapon like... base damage beam to a heat chambered shield & armor with between 50% and 75% mitigation. That's still a gauranteed 12.5% or 25% points to both.

And that goes all the way up to 25% points - 50% points on both if you're using a 100% chambered heat weapon. Which is a guaranteed 250-500 damage on a 100% chambered heat weapon of 1,000 total damage.

The point is that the benfit of chambering heat is that you're gauranteed to deal damage. Not that that damage is supposed to be high. It's the low risk-medium reward option. With the others being high risk for either high reward or very little reward.

S, at the end of my thought process. No, it is not pointless to chamber heat under my system, even if the max of 75% heat damage on both is retained.

Percentage points is far different than percentages. You gotta distinguish.

I am fully aware that heat is meant to be a guaranteed damage option, but splitting as much damage as possible between kinetic and EM always gives more guaranteed damage.

For a weapon with 50% kinetic, 33% EM, and 17% heat damage against a ship with 40% kinetic, 50% EM, and 75% heat reduction, 50.75% total damage is dealt as you said.
If you make that weapon 45% kinetic, 45% EM, and 10% heat damage against the same ship, 51.5% total damage is dealt.

If you change the ship to have more kinetic defense and less EM defense, or just make it an even 45/45, the kinetic/heat weapon will deal even less while the kinetic/EM hybrid will deal the exact same amount.

 

[petlahk]

I am fully aware that heat is meant to be a guaranteed damage option, but splitting as much damage as possible between kinetic and EM always gives more guaranteed damage.

Except it isn't always more optimal to split your damage types for the weapon.
And, again:

If you make that weapon 45% kinetic, 45% EM, and 10% heat damage against the same ship, 51.5% total damage is dealt.

I am 90% sure that this distribution is impossible due to only being able to attach one tertiary system to a weapon.

So. The best case scenario with a base weapon would be:

Shields Blocking: 90% Kinetic, 0% EM, 75% Heat. (absolute best cawse would obviously be that the 75% heat were 50%)

Weapon has the values of:
.5 Kinetic, 1.5 EM, and 1.0 Heat.
Weapon Percentage points are:
16% Kinetic, 50% EM, and 33% Heat
Which, after shield reduction is:
1.6% + 50% + 8.25% = 59.85% of damage dealt. (Best case scenario)

However, if the weapon has values of:
1.5 Kinetic, .5 EM, 1.0 Heat:
Weapon Percentage points are:
50% Kinetic, 16% EM, and 33% Heat
Which, after shield reduction is:
5% + 16% + 8.5% = 29.25 % (Worst case scenario)

These are the best case scenarios and worst case scenarios for the most common weapon numbers that still fall into the realm of possibility.

Okay. So. Now that I've done this math. I will concede the point that a cap of 75% heat damage does sorta make heat useless. Because the worst case scenario for a balanced weapon is still 29.25% of total damage. Which, yeah, makes the balanced weapon choice the best choice. However, that doesn't mean we need to scrap the entire system.

So, if we maintain the base value for both Armor and Shields to have 50% Heat block. And cap them both at a max of 65% block on heat damage then the worst-case scenario for heat is now 35% damage taken with the best case scenario still being 50% damage taken. Which is solidly in between the worst case and best case scenarios for a basic weapon.

This would also make the optimal all around defense for a shield be:
40% Kinetic, 50% EM, and 65% Heat
With weapon values:
.5 Kinetic, 1.0 EM, and 1.5% Heat
With weapon percentages being:
16% Kinetic, 33% EM, and 50% Heat
With percentages after reduction being:
9.6% + 16.5% + 17.5% = 53.2% blocked. (Best case for optimal defense-oriented shield.)

And for that same shield but with weapon values being:
1.5% Kinetic, 1.0 EM, and .5% Heat
With weapon percentages being:
50% Kinetic, 33% EM, and 16% Heat
And percentages after reduction being:
30% + 16.5% + 5.6% = 52.1% blocked. (Worst case for optimal defense-oriented shield.)

So. I think, optimally. Default Heat damage reduction for both shields and armor should actually probably be 40% which makes 100% optimal at 60% damage to both assuming no chamber upgrades. But, with a cap of 65% which still makes it the guaranteed damage dealer at 35% of damage dealt if your weapons line up in the worst case scenario of 29.25% against the enemy shields by default.

All of this keeps in mind of course that the weapon's best case scenario would be 100% against both shields and armor if the defender has 0% for the same value on both. But this is an extreme edge case. With the other extreme being 10% damage against both. With the default being - assuming all of the weapons power is dedicated to one effect - 10% damage against shields, and 90% damage against armor, or versa-vice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tl;Dr/ Tired of reading pet's math:
After waking up and crunching the numbers for myself, you're right. 75% tops for defense against heat on both the shield and armor tree is too much.

However, I think that tweaking the defaults for heat to be a damage reduction for heat between 40% and 65% retains heat damage as the optimal 100% given that it is place in between the absolute worst case scenario scenario, and absolute best case scenario.

Sorry for taking so long to figure out your point for myself God mode. Would you be OK with this new range for Heat defense?

 

[God mode]

I am 90% sure that this distribution is impossible due to only being able to attach one tertiary system to a weapon.

It doesn't matter if that specific combination is impossible. The point is that increasing the percent of heat damage reduces your total average and guaranteed damage.

However, I think that tweaking the defaults for heat to be a damage reduction for heat between 40% and 65% retains heat damage as the optimal 100% given that it is place in between the absolute worst case scenario scenario, and absolute best case scenario.

40%-65% upgraded is still too high. The maximum heat reduction would need to stay under 45% for heat damage to be potentially viable in any form. You need a large enough difference for a heat chamber to be useful, so maybe something like 30% default and 45% upgraded.

Even then, since you can only have a single tertiary, you're still better off going with EM/kinetic if the goal is to deal the most guaranteed damage regardless of enemy defenses.

Against a ship with 90% EM, 0% kinetic, and 30% heat reduction:
A weapon with 40% EM, 40% kinetic, 20% heat damage deals 58% total damage.
A weapon with 17% EM, 33% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 69.7% total damage.
A weapon with 33% EM, 17% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 55.3% total damage.

Against a ship with 0% EM, 90% kinetic, and 30% heat reduction:
A weapon with 40% EM, 40% kinetic, 20% heat damage deals 58% total damage.
A weapon with 17% EM, 33% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 55.3% total damage.
A weapon with 33% EM, 17% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 69.7% total damage.

Against a ship with 90% EM, 0% kinetic, and 45% heat reduction:
A weapon with 40% EM, 40% kinetic, 20% heat damage deals 55% total damage.
A weapon with 17% EM, 33% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 62.2% total damage.
A weapon with 33% EM, 17% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 47.8% total damage.

Against a ship with 0% EM, 90% kinetic, and 45% heat reduction:
A weapon with 40% EM, 40% kinetic, 20% heat damage deals 55% total damage.
A weapon with 17% EM, 33% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 47.8% total damage.
A weapon with 33% EM, 17% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 62.2% total damage.

Average damage for EM/kinetic is 56.5%, and 55% is guaranteed. Average damage for heat is slightly higher at 58.75%, but only 47.8% is guaranteed.

If you lower heat reduction all the way down to 20%, the weapons become roughly equal in guaranteed damage.

Against a ship with 0% EM, 90% kinetic, and 20% heat reduction:
A weapon with 40% EM, 40% kinetic, 20% heat damage deals 60% total damage.
A weapon with 17% EM, 33% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 60.3% total damage.
A weapon with 33% EM, 17% kinetic, and 50% heat damage deals 74.7% total damage.

 

[petlahk]

All of your numbers are completely wrong. So I can't take you seriously.

That very first two lines works out to be: 56% damage dealt. Not 58% damage dealt.

I don't know what math you're using. You have to take the weapons damage percentages and multiply by the decimal equivalent of 100-[% of damage blocked].

Meaning that for:

Against a ship with 90% EM, 0% kinetic, and 30% heat reduction:
A weapon with 40% EM, 40% kinetic, 20% heat damage deals 58% total damage.

The math is:

40% * .10 = 4%
40% * 1.0 = 40%
20% * .6 = 12 % (Should be multiplied by .7, messed that up a bit.)*
Total: 56% damage taken

Not only is that wrong. But I still believe that all of your weapon percentages are impossible under the tertiary additions system. So, after realizing this you've seriously damage your credibility with me.

First off, using your insistently wrong and impossible numbers. (I'll use 17% just for the sake of making it come out to an even 100% instead of 99%) (So the numbers are 17%, 33%, and 50%.)

The average damage % for each weapon combination with a 30% heat reduction is...

18.333% for both EM and Kinetic. And 23.333% for Heat. This is with values of 17%, 90% and 30% for each of the weapons, and the 0%, 90%, and 30% for the damage mitigation. This would be the same for every single set. These are way lower average damage than yours.

Also, at 40% the values are: 18.333%, 18.333%, and 20% for heat. Still better.

And, if we go up to 65% the values are: 18.333%, 18.333%, and 11.666% for heat.

If you average the averages? 18.333%, 18.333%, and 15.833%. So on average, yes, the Heat deals a miniscule amount less damage than the other two. But that hardly matters.

I wasn't even trying to calculate averages for mine, nor do I think that the averages matter. Averages only matter if you assume that the values are completely random. But the values are not completely random, lots of human element is involved. And it matters much more what the total damage that gets through is than the average damages for each category. So, if we do total damage that gets through averages instead of silly category averages...

For the 90% and 0% being either in Kinetic or EM on the shields then:
40% on the Heat the values come out to:
41.2%
63.5%
64.7%

Wanna guess what that 64% is from? Optimal values I already game you:
33% VS 0% reduction, 17% VS 90%, and 50% VS *DRUM ROLL* THE HEAT

And the exact same applies for 65% with the HEAT effect deal, you wanna know? Most of the damage.

Also. If we calculate the chances based simply on 100% in each category then we get...

You wanna know? A higher chance of your HEAT tertiary always dealing consistent damage than the other two.

So please god mode. Please stop trying to eat away at my post by spamming the thread with false numbers that do nothing to prove your point. You numbers are both inaccurate and represent false equivalencies about the relationship of weapon tertiary VS chambers under my system. I will not be replying to you again.

 

[God mode]

All of your numbers are completely wrong. So I can't take you seriously.

That very first two lines works out to be: 56% damage dealt. Not 58% damage dealt.

I don't know what math you're using. You have to take the weapons damage percentages and multiply by the decimal equivalent of 100-[% of damage blocked].

Meaning that for:



The math is:

40% * .10 = 4%
40% * 1.0 = 40%
20% * .6 = 12 %
Total: 56% damage taken

Not only is that wrong. But I still believe that all of your weapon percentages are impossible under the tertiary additions system. So, after realizing this you've seriously damage your credibility with me.

First off, using your insistently wrong and impossible numbers. (I'll use 17% just for the sake of making it come out to an even 100% instead of 99%) (So the numbers are 17%, 33%, and 50%.)

The average damage % for each weapon combination with a 30% heat reduction is...

18.333% for both EM and Kinetic. And 23.333% for Heat. This is with values of 17%, 90% and 30% for each of the weapons, and the 0%, 90%, and 30% for the damage mitigation. This would be the same for every single set. These are way lower average damage than yours.

Also, at 40% the values are: 18.333%, 18.333%, and 20% for heat. Still better.

And, if we go up to 65% the values are: 18.333%, 18.333%, and 11.666% for heat.

If you average the averages? 18.333%, 18.333%, and 15.833%. So on average, yes, the Heat deals a miniscule amount less damage than the other two. But that hardly matters.

I wasn't even trying to calculate averages for mine, nor do I think that the averages matter. Averages only matter if you assume that the values are completely random. But the values are not completely random, lots of human element is involved. And it matters much more what the total damage that gets through is than the average damages for each category. So, if we do total damage that gets through averages instead of silly category averages...

For the 90% and 0% being either in Kinetic or EM on the shields then:
40% on the Heat the values come out to:
41.2%
63.5%
64.7%

Wanna guess what that 64% is from? Optimal values I already game you:
33% VS 0% reduction, 17% VS 90%, and 50% VS *DRUM ROLL* THE HEAT

And the exact same applies for 65% with the HEAT effect deal, you wanna know? Most of the damage.

Also. If we calculate the chances based simply on 100% in each category then we get...

You wanna know? A higher chance of your HEAT tertiary always dealing consistent damage than the other two.

So please god mode. Please stop trying to eat away at my post by spamming the thread with false numbers that do nothing to prove your point. You numbers are both inaccurate and represent false equivalencies about the relationship of weapon tertiary VS chambers under my system. I will not be replying to you again.

Holy hell batman.

1-0.3=0.7, not 0.6.

40% * 0.1 = 4%
40% * 1.0 = 40%
20% * 0.7 = 14%

4%+40%+14% = 58%

My numbers are correct and your attitude is ridiculous. What is your problem? I was starting to not despise you.

 

[petlahk]

My numbers are correct and your attitude is ridiculous. What is your problem? I was starting to not despise you.

My problem is being ticked off all day because people keep getting on my case about trivial crap. And people have been at my throat since I got here in 2013, so I'm sorry that I'm very defensive/offensive on these forums. Also I'm sick of doing the same calculations over and over. Sorry.

Anyway. If we back away from these numbers for a bit. My main point is that Using accurate numbers (which 40%, 40%, and 20% are not. Which is why I did not use those values in m latest post. Because it is impossible to get that ratio with secondary and tertiary modules AFAIK. But I would need the developers to answer my question on how effect numbers are calculated for Primary + Secondary + Tertiary to know for sure.)

The numbers don't actually justify a scrapping of the entire system at all. Which is what I see all of your posts as trying to do. Yes, heat is, on average, a worse weapon choice *in theory* than all the others. But if you step back from the optimal numbers it's easier to see how they just don't do justice to the system.

After conceding the point that 75% max heat damage would lead to heat RC always being cranked to 75%.

Under the system the optimal shield configuration against a regularly chambered basic weapon with no secondary or tertiary is either 40/50/40 or 40/50/65. However, in this case the optimal weapon system would be to get a weapon to the 40%s in the 40/50/40 case, or either the 40% or 50% in the 40/50/64 case.

However, unless an additional system of electronic warfare is implemented the weapon user doesn't actually know whether the shield user is using 40/50/40 or 40/50/65. The shield user could be using 0/90/40 or 0/90/65 or 90/0/40 or 90/0/65.

So, for the weapon user to get guaranteed damage of some sort a 100% tertiary of heat is the weapon users best choice, because the values on any of the other two give chambers could be between 0%-90% whereas the value on the heat chamber is a much smaller range with a lower cap of between 40%-65%.

So, it's a tough choice. Do I take the risk that the shield user has all their shields/armor in 90% kinetic and build a 100% kinetic-based weapon? Or do I play it safe and go for a guaranteed damage-dealt of 35-60% against the heat element? Yeah, it's less damage on average to play it safe and go for the heat, but it's more guaranteed damage, you know?

Also, none of the numbers we used accounted for the fact that Shield/Armor is layered 0/90/40 and 90/0/40 by default. So that's another whole set of what is essentially statistics and probabilities that further skew the numbers we've discussed against what the numbers and rock/paper/scissors would look like in actuality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In retrospect I probably should've just made this argument in the first place instead of digging into optimal numbers with you the whole time.

It is a bit frustrating that your numbers are either impossible (for the 40%, 40%, 20% on each weapon.) or false (The third line of math doesn't check out. I meant third line, not second, I'm sorry.), but you're correct that it isn't worth taking out my generalized anger toward people-in-general/the-community-in-general on you. (Also, the numbers for that third line are barely wrong anyway.)

So. I guess the first thing is, do you see my point about how the system has so much depth to it that the numbers we've presented barely matter?

And the second is, can we move past our differences and back onto the right track? Or at the very least, can you recognize why I hold long-standing animosity and suspicion toward everyone?

Let's get back on topic.

Edit: Remembered that I accidentally calculated all of your numbers with .6 the first time. I did correct it to .7 on my personal chart, but all the corrections might not have made it into my original post.

 

[Raisinbat]

Average damage for EM/kinetic is 56.5%, and 55% is guaranteed. Average damage for heat is slightly higher at 58.75%, but only 47.8% is guaranteed.

This is why damage types are stupid and shouldn't be in the game; There will always be an optimal average offense and optimal average defense that people will probably stick to, so what is the point?

 

[Zoolimar]

Increasing Missile Reload Times
(NaStral)

Consensus has been generally reached that the current missile reload times are far too fast for adequately serving the purpose of balancing missiles. As it currently stands the reload time for one missile is currently between 2 and 2.5 seconds. This barely compensates for the high-yield of missiles. The proposal is that the missile reload time be bumped to between 30 and 60 seconds per missile to better serve the purpose of making them a tactical high-risk high-reward weapon.

Along with this suggestion is a suggestion to possibly slightly increase the missile capacity per missile block. As well as a suggestion by Ithirahad to consider adding a block that can be used to increase missile reload time at the cost of high power consumption.

What about tying missile life time to missile reload time? And removing the missile capacity altogether.

You want a 2 second recharge missile? Go on, but it would have only 2 seconds of flight time and will self-destruct after that.
Built a missile with 60 second recharge time? Good, it could fly for 60 seconds.

 

[petlahk]

What about tying missile life time to missile reload time? And removing the missile capacity altogether.

You want a 2 second recharge missile? Go on, but it would have only 2 seconds of flight time and will self-destruct after that.
Built a missile with 60 second recharge time? Good, it could fly for 60 seconds.

Hrm. It's an interesting thought. But, I'm not sure it makes sense.

You would have to scale larger more powerful missiles reload/flight time *really hard* to it's size. And that comes with a whole slew of issues. How small is weak enough that it can have a short recharge? If that short recharge is tied to flight time, then aren't all of my fighter's anti-fighter missiles worthless? How larger is large enough to warrant a really long recharge time? a 50 block missile array? Isn't that still kinda small? Isn't 60 seconds of flight time a bit much for any missile?

Interesting thought. But I think there are better fixes to capacity that could come first.

One idea could be to have the missile capacity blocks tied to weapon computer on a per-computer basis. This would mean that under current scaling I could get about 2 missiles per minute out of four missile arrays. But I'd still be hampered if I wanted more missiles. But under this idea missile spam is back in some ways. I could just build a bunch of smaller missile arrays with 2 missiles each and spam with those.

Another idea is to increase the capacity curve so that I could get 4 missiles a little bit easier. This way it makes a little bit more sense to have multiple arrays, but still mitigates missile spam in the way that the ship-wide capacity and recharge does.

But, I think either way the capacity should stay and that the reload time needs to increase.

Of course it's hard to tell right now because AMS/PDS is borked in the dev builds.

With that said. The having a missile flight time idea is an interesting one, but I don't think tying it to reload time and removing capacity in this way achieves what the developers are going for, or really makes sense.

I think missile flight time might have a place somewhere, just that this implementation wouldn't make sense.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Three type damage could just be nixed for a simplified single value with very little change in how the system works. Basically, you have a single value that represents the gradient between EM > Thermal > Kinetic. Let's say for example %0= pure Thermal, %100= pure Kinetic.

Beams (thermal) = Default to 25% but can be shifted from 0-50% using chambers or other modifiers.
Missiles (ballenced) = Default to 50% but can be shifted from 25-75% using chambers or other modifiers.
Cannons (kinetic) = Default to 75% but can be shifted from 50-100% using chambers or other modifiers.​

Armor = Default to 66% but can be shifted from 25-100% using chambers. (Protects best against kinetics weapons by default.)
Shields = Defaults to 33% but can be shifted from 0-75% using chambers. (Protects best against thermal weapons by default.)

(these could be swapped if you wanted shields to block cannons and armor to block beams)​

A basic system for handling this would be:

$damageMultiplier = 1+Math.Abs($defenseBallence - $weaponBallence) /100;​

Basically, this means that you suffer a damage penalty based on how far your defense is from thier offense.
Examples:

• At default, this means that shields will take a balanced penalty between missiles and beams of ~17% and ~41% penalty vs cannons. Armor is vise versa.
• If your shields are adjusted to 50%, you'd be very strong vs missiles with a 0% penality and 25% penalty vs other weapons.
• Worst case scenario: If your shields are adjusted to 0% and you get hit by a cannon adjusted to 100%, you take +100% extra damage.
• Generally adjusting your defense past %25-75 range will be bad unless you are adapting to a min-maxed enemy.

Implementation Notes

• Weapons should have a total nerf of 25% for this system to remain balanced.
• While I'm not normally a slider advocate, this is a perfect example of a system that would benefit from it. Since there is no overall advantage of one modulation over another, that advantage of this on a ship would simply be being ABLE to modulate shields/armor. So my suggestion is to add just a single level chamber that lets you modulate shields and a separate one for armor. As long as these are installed you should be able to modulate them on-the-fly with sliders.
• A possible Add-on chamber to these would be auto-adapters which would modulate your shields slowly in the direction of incoming damage for you automatically (Think borg shields), but this would likely cost a lot of RP.

[doublepost=1525189567,1525189384][/doublepost]

This is why damage types are stupid and shouldn't be in the game; There will always be an optimal average offense and optimal average defense that people will probably stick to, so what is the point?

In the above suggestion, there is no true optimal since anywhere in the 25-75% range you will have the exact same total penalty points distributed between weapon types. Meta would only be perceived based on what the popular weapon setup of the week is.