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

[petlahk]

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;

The idea is pretty solid. But could you clarify?

First, how would you protect against EM, is EM damage the middle-ground in your system? Or is Thermal the middle ground in your system? Why not just use EM weapons? Could you clarify that, and clarify your sliders slightly?

Secondly, just to clarify the math for everyone else. It's:

%DamageDealt = 1 + TheAbsoluteValueOf( %DefenseOfType - %TypeOfWeapon)/100

Correct? Your variables have me slightly confused.

 

[Nosajimiki]

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.

Yes, makes since for optimization, but no since as a mechanic.

As for tying missile count to launchers, I've felt that from the start. 20-7mil damage missiles should not use the same amount of ammo blocks as 20-50k missiles. While I understand the desire to eliminate distractor spam, targeting priority makes distractors useless anyway; so, this is a moot point anyway. In addition, the new mechanic does not scale well to larger ships that need more missiles to not waste radius damage.

This significantly nerfs missiles as an option for cruisers.

With these factors in mind, I think you should tie ammo to the launcher where you give more efficiency for fewer launchers. For example:

1 - ammo for a 1000 block missile needs 1000 blocks
2 - ammo for a 1000 block missile needs 1800 blocks
3 - ammo for a 1000 block missile needs 2440 blocks
,etc.

To further balance this, each magazine would have to wait several minutes to reload instead of ammo at a fixed rate. So, if the timer is 5 min, then a "nuke" only gets 1 shot every 5 min, but a slightly smaller launcher with 10 ammo would reload one shot every 30 sec.

This way, the meta would in theory become to balance ammo count to launcher count where min-maxing (aka-missile spam) becomes a worse option than ammo staging rather than a totally unreachable goal. While a massive spamy salvo would still be doable such as you would want for a heavy cruiser to be able to harm another heavy cruiser, it would be a one shot deal creating a single instance of lag that the battle could recover from during the long reload cycle.

 

[petlahk]

Yes, makes since for optimization, but no since as a mechanic.

As for tying missile count to launchers, I've felt that from the start. 20-7mil damage missiles should not use the same amount of ammo blocks as 20-50k missiles. While I understand the desire to eliminate distractor spam, targeting priority makes distractors useless anyway; so, this is a moot point anyway. In addition, the new mechanic does not scale well to larger ships that need more missiles to not waste radius damage.

This significantly nerfs missiles as an option for cruisers.

With these factors in mind, I think you should tie ammo to the launcher where you give more efficiency for fewer launchers. For example:

1 - ammo for a 1000 block missile needs 1000 blocks
2 - ammo for a 1000 block missile needs 1800 blocks
3 - ammo for a 1000 block missile needs 2440 blocks
,etc.

To further balance this, each magazine would have to wait several minutes to reload instead of ammo at a fixed rate. So, if the timer is 5 min, then a "nuke" only gets 1 shot every 5 min, but a slightly smaller launcher with 10 ammo would reload one shot every 30 sec.

This way, the meta would in theory become to balance ammo count to launcher count where min-maxing (aka-missile spam) becomes a worse option than ammo staging rather than a totally unreachable goal. While a massive spamy salvo would still be doable such as you would want for a heavy cruiser to be able to harm another heavy cruiser, it would be a one shot deal creating a single instance of lag that the battle could recover from during the long reload cycle.

Hrm.

So, capacity is tied directly to the individual weapon systems in a 1:1 ratio for blocksInWeapon:BlocksOfCapacity. And, reload becomes based on total magazine. So it's not economical to have your 1,000 block missile weapon have, for example, 10,0000 blocks of capacity just to get your reload down to spam rates.

Makes a lot of sense TBH.

I explained it to myself because I was worried that it would be difficulty for new players (it might still be difficult for new players). But it seems more intuitive than I initially thought.

Schema. This seems like a good fix, can we have it please? It's the best all-around balance solution between community qualms and your goals. :3

 

[Nosajimiki]

The idea is pretty solid. But could you clarify?

First, how would you protect against EM, is EM damage the middle-ground in your system? Or is Thermal the middle ground in your system? Why not just use EM weapons? Could you clarify that, and clarify your sliders slightly?

Secondly, just to clarify the math for everyone else. It's:

%DamageDealt = 1 + TheAbsoluteValueOf( %DefenseOfType - %TypeOfWeapon)/100

Correct? Your variables have me slightly confused.

EM technically does not exist in this system. 3 value mechanics are convoluting the system since EM is basically the middle ground anyway in regards to other suggestions it makes no sense to keep on that level. It also made for a "true balance" option of 50%, 50%, 50% which would basically encourage people to not do anything with it. As Rasinbat said, this would just become the defacto meta negating the whole point of there being a system. This system basically allows you to optimise a bit vs 2 weapon types or a lot vs 1 weapon type, but never against all 3. Also, by putting missiles in the middle, you get the two "direct fire" weapons at polar opposite ends which helps to further diversify with what are currently almost interchangeable systems.

As for the math.
$damageMultiplier: is a variable that returns between 1 and 2 that gets multiplied by your base damage to apply your bonus damage. 1= 0% bonus damage, 2= 100% bonus damage.

Math.Abs(): is the absolute value function in many programming languages.

$defenseBallence: This is the value applied to a shield or armor's modulation

$weaponBallence: This is the value applied to a weapon's modulation.

 

[petlahk]

EM technically does not exist in this system. 3 value mechanics are convoluting the system since EM is basically the middle ground anyway in regards to other suggestions it makes no sense to keep on that level.

Makes sense. It's the best of my systems, Iths system, and your system. It's got nearly the simplicity of iths while still achieving the sorta sliding effect of mine. But it's also simpler than mine. Tt removes a kinda superfluous element. And also the sliders are much more intuitive.

I think a good thing to do would be to make the node for shields and armor have slightly high RC cost (but not too high) in the defense chamber. Then slightly lower RC costs in an offensive chamber for Missiles, Beams, and Cannons.

The Thrusters panel could be renamed "Systems" or "Systems Adjustment" and contain all the information for weapons, thrusters, and shield/armor modulation in one easier to navigate screen. This would remove the sorta different-type-of-panel issue that could arise in the reactor menus.

One thing I think is that the weapons should be modulated based on having the chamber and having the tertiary computers so as to not remove the build element required by having the tertiary computers.

So, say I want to modulate my cannons. I can only modulate them to pure thermal if I have a 100% thermal tertiary setup and the modulation node unlocked in offense. This means that I could hard modulate my weapons if I don't want to spend AC on the chamber. But If I want that versatility then I could spend the AC on the weapon modulation chamber. Also, the weapons could modulate with only a 50% tertiary computer, but couldn't modulate all the way, and if I don't have that tertiary and the chamber node then I can't modulate at all.

 

[petlahk]

Also. I forgot to say this. Well, I just didn't think of it till later. I don't think there should be any sort of automatic modulation. And I think the adjustment time should be sorta steep at 30 seconds or a minute. So that it's trickier to guess what weapon combo the enemy is using and adjust. Maybe an adjustment time of 30 seconds, and a cool-down of 30 till you can adjust again?

Another thought is that there could be one upgrade to the modulation that brings down the modulation cooldown.

And, I don't think AI should be able to modulate shields. It would be very frustrating for new players when they could never deal damage because the AI instantly modulated to the correct modulation.

Just some extra thoughts. I think it's a good system.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Also. I forgot to say this. Well, I just didn't think of it till later. I don't think there should be any sort of automatic modulation. And I think the adjustment time should be sorta steep at 30 seconds or a minute. So that it's trickier to guess what weapon combo the enemy is using and adjust. Maybe an adjustment time of 30 seconds, and a cool-down of 30 till you can adjust again?

Another thought is that there could be one upgrade to the modulation that brings down the modulation cooldown.

And, I don't think AI should be able to modulate shields. It would be very frustrating for new players when they could never deal damage because the AI instantly modulated to the correct modulation.

Just some extra thoughts. I think it's a good system.

This is where I disagree. Pilots need things to do other than shoot and straif. The biggest thing that died with chambers was piloting as its own "career path" because there is now so little to do in a fight. New missiles are too fast to waffle, new power killed weapons staging so timing your attacks is less important, no one ship can tactical jump, inhibit, jam, and scan, so there are no real choices left to make. Basically, the only thing a good pilot can do that a shit pilot can not is guess who will win the fight, where as before, a good pilot in a mediocre ship could still make enough good choices to earn a win.

Every good fight I've ever been in was a fast paced chess match where I needed to make quick decisions about my ship, my enemy's ships, and had options to make decisions based on that info to influence the fights outcome. Sometimes I made the best choices, sometimes, my enemies made the best choices. Ideally, a ship should have slightly more things to manage than a person can effectively shuffle in a fight. This means that new players have a lot to explore in how to become good at making those choices, and experienced pilots become just as valuable as experienced builders. This benefits both ends of the learning curve since it incentivises playing the game with things to do and skills earned for what you've done. This learning curve is also what prevents top tier players from just dominating a server by recruiting noobs and giving them OP meta ships.

In line with this reasoning: Auto-modulation adds depth and opens up a lot of advanced piloting options for people trying to devise strategies to overcome it; while also being a very simple system for newer players to use to decent effect. In-combat modulation, while less convenient, would be an advanced skill to handle under fire which again brings some of that piloting skill back into the game. The 3rd thing it brings to the table is that it discourages min-maxing a single weapon class. This make that the game naturally resistant to exploit mechanics.

 

[kikaha]

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.

i like that...

 

[Zoolimar]

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.

Why do you need to scale flight time with size? I don't see how that follows.

Want a giant missile system with 2 seconds recharge time? Go on. But you'll need to cough up the energy for its recharge in 2 seconds.

Same goes for long reload missiles - they would eat less energy per second and allow for harder alpha launches but if enemy has a good PD you'll suddenly find yourself at great disadvantage due to a lot of mass being dedicated to missile systems.

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.

The reason to have flight time tied to reload time is to cut the number of missiles in the "air" to the number of launchers on the ship.

 

[Nosajimiki]

The reason to have flight time tied to reload time is to cut the number of missiles in the "air" to the number of launchers on the ship.

The biggest problem I see here is that there is more to optimise than just missile count. I believe the game drops too many missiles because calculating 5000 explosions would crash the game. 5000 non-physical entities should not be enough to cause a major performance issue if well optimised. So, this suggestion could make things worse if a person could just fly into knife fighting distances to fire 100 heavy missiles per second using fast reloading .2 second flight time missiles.

I think Schine is thinking along the right path with ammo capacity, but needs to rework it a bit.

Instead consider this:

Right now, small missiles have the same radius as big missiles, meaning that even with lower damage and smaller holes, they take similar loads to calculate. (bad for optimisation). Big missiles have the same ammo requirements as small missiles (bad for gameplay). A better compromise would be to scale radius based on missile power so that a 50k missile does fewer damage checks than a 5mil dam missile.

This way, missile spam does not add a huge load on the game when it hits someone meaning the engine can be optimised to handle more missiles. It also means that a corvette is not allocating the same mass to a 10 missile salvo as a titan for no apparent reason. When paired with AMS priorities, distractor missiles would not be viable; so, the missile swarm meta would be limited by your need for big blast areas to get through thick armor, and any optimal salvo would be of identically sized missiles to prevent your most valuable "heavy" missiles from being singled out. The end result would not be a heavy handed missile limit so much as adjusting the meta to make players want to use fewer missiles. (Enough to get through AMS but few enough to get through armor.) Given how people have been armoring their ships now, I'd guess this is somewhere in the 2-20 range.

 

[Zoolimar]

So, this suggestion could make things worse if a person could just fly into knife fighting distances to fire 100 heavy missiles per second using fast reloading .2 second flight time missiles.

Considering that fast-reloading missiles at 0.2 sec would need at least 10 times more energy production than missiles with 2 seconds of reload and will have absolutely atrocious range I don't see how they would be effective - besides lagging the server to the death in case they actually start hitting something.

In case you want missiles to have bigger yields and long reload times you could always go for multiples of 10 seconds.

What it will accomplish is remove dozens of missiles dancing around fast moving ships as their number would be limited to only one salvo per ship.