RE: Weapon balance for the future

RE: Weapon balance for the future (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 12:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pipewrench 1. I agree so if they want torpedo's they now must have fuel cells. I have not really thought out the fact that putting a platform above a gas planet would create permanent supply. This isn't really a problem, since a thing which doesn't actually move isn't exactly a galactic menace. quote: ORIGINAL: pipewrench 2. I agree again so what about limiting fuel inventory to a point where it would not tax a beam weapon heavy empire but would restrict a torpedo carrying empire to strategic assaults instead of a broad front. There's no practical way to "limit" fuel inventory, short of imposing more idiotic arbitrary limits on ship construction, as a player can always nail more fuel cells onto a ship. Even then, how far are you willing to jack up torp energy consumption? Let's say for the same DPS, a torpedo will eat up 4 times the fuel. What effect will this have? Pretty much none at all, since the average combat is not going to drain a decently fuelled ship even if you increase it to a factor of 10. quote: ORIGINAL: pipewrench 3. If you won you won which is pretty simple and straightforward. What I was talking about is a way to create a targeted base of operations in a supply ship that could turn a battle instantly as denying supply to a stronger opponent would change the tactical situation. Putting torps on the supply ship would be the workaround and I am still thinking about that obvious route. Computers suck at complex logistics. Anything which makes life harder to the computer will make the game easier by far. Really, DW is not intended to be a complex micromanagement simulator and should not be made to become one. The only thing needed for torpedoes to be less "gimme" is to make beams better: Either they take less space, they have much better accuracy, or they fire faster: Anything which makes the raw DPS of a short-range ship superior to that of the long-range equivalent will force a meaningful decision. That's really the goal here, isn't it? The issue at hand is that presently, one weapon choice is a dominant strategy. Make it not the clearly dominant strategy and alternative options emerge.

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 1:28:12 PM)
An ammunition Collier / supply ship is nothing more than a refeuling point essentially. If the computer understands refueling it could easily be made to understand reloading. (with a higher safety margin probably) Aurora is the only "game" / "VB-spreadsheet" that has this functionality as far as I know but it would be great to see in DW as well. This could for example show the distinct difference between ammunition based and energy based weapons (if introduced) -Ammunition based weaponry relies on supply delivery of ammo. (collier ships) -Energy based weaponry rely on fuel / energy and thus delivery of fuel. (refueling / tanker ships) It would add strategy as well as racial / tech path distinction to the Universe. Do you focus on ammunition or energy based weaponry? Distinctions could be: - - - - - - - - -Ammuntion - - - - - - - Energy Fire-Rate + (-) - (+) :Rate of Fire is usually an ammunition based advantage; some weapon forms differ. (pules, rail gun etc..) req-ammo + - :Ammo requirement to fight req-fuel - + :Energy / fuel requirement to fight Range - (+) + (-) :Range is usually an energy based advantage; though some weapons differ. (rail gun +, pulse laser (-)) Speed - + :Projectile / Beam Speed is (? usually?) an Energy based advantage. Damage + (-) - (+) :Overal Damage per second is usually a projectile based advantage. Some weapons differ. (rail gun +, pulse laser (-)) Accuracy - (+) + (-) :Accuracy over vast distances is an Energy based advantage. Some weapons differ. (Missiles, guided ammunition +, pulse laser (-)) How would the AI handle this? Well there would be several weapon types & strategies that the AI would have to incorporate in its ship design and strategic / tactical decisions. - An energy based combat vessel is by default (long) ranged and thus prefers to keep its distance. - A Projectile based combat vessel is by default medium ranged and prefers to close in because close distances vastly increase accuracy when using Projectile based weapons. - Guided Projectiles negate accuracy & range malus on guns. - Energy based warfare is fuel / power intensive. Fuel for maneuvering & fighting is limited. Refueling ships a nessesity. (tankers?) - Projectile based warfare is ammunition intensive. Ammunition must be supplied - Projectile storage is more efficient that fuel storage for weapons consumption. Thus this would allow us to conclude: Energy based weaponry is more Expensive but (usually) confers a range and accuracy advantage. Projectile based weaponry is cheap but (usually) confers a Rate of Fire and damage advantage. Which also implies that if Fighters are introduced: - Energy based bombers are very effective if they can keep range. - Projectile based fighters / interceptors are very effecive because they have RoF & damage. (need to get close though) - Energy based point defense is not as effective as projectile based point defense versus many fighters / swarms of missiles. (Rate of Fire & medium range VS slow, accurate & high range) I'd love to see the combat system deepened somehow. Just giving an idea!

Stardog -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 1:28:46 PM)
Sup Guy's! , Hey FISH - How's/What about a Set Load Time for the Torp's ? In the Game it's a recharge rate I think .? But maybe there could be a reload time as well? &/Or If not maybe Jack-Up the Recharge rate for Torp's.? I still say there should be Ship based weapon's & Base based weapon's. Like the other Dude said this is a great post ACE'S - UP to RUSTY for starting this one!!!! Hey I like BART'S idea of Ammo Weapons! Bring on the Super ArGuss Rail Guns!!!! LOL WM

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 4:25:05 PM)
The Keeper of Sol Sol has long been guarded by its Defense station dubbed "the Keeper" by locals. It was built not long after Humanity settled the system and has been vigilently kept up to date ever since. The station was involved in some of worst fighting of the Kiadan conflict during which a massive armada of Kiadan missile cruisers attempted to seize Sol, the system of Humanities origin. The Genesis war was decided in that battle; The conflict had first started over a dispute between the Securan Matriarchy and the Terran Union concerning ownership of pre-shaktur war human technology. The Kiadan fleet drops out hyperspace in line formation, prepared to launch a lightning strike at the station guarding Sol-3 from afar. Alarms sound within the Keeper. Officers and crews report to battle stations, the stations com crews warn civilian traffic that a battle is about to take place. Silence. The Kiadan fleets holds formation and moves to enter range. Men calm themselves and steel their spirits for battle. The Order is given! The Kiadan ships each unleash a tremendous volley of missiles at the station. The missiles swirm towards their target. These are not the ancient outdated missiles still seen on some of the obsolete terran commercial freighters. They dance amongst the stars in a dazzeling pirrouete of impending death and destruction. The stations point defense guns come to life. Neatly the high speed gattling guns start tracking their dancing targets, firing as soon as they enter range. A volley of point defense fire errupts from the first battery, followed by the second and soon the third. The missiles, cleverly programmed dart apart away from the interlocking fields of fire heading to opposite sides of the station before converging in an orgy of fire, vacuum and death. The defenders do not sit idle however. The stations Laser Lenses have been focussed at the lead cruiser, holding fire in an effort to lure them further into range. Soon, there will be no retreat. .... *Record Sealed due to Political Tension with Kiada Prime ** [:'(]

taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 6:20:39 PM)
the only way to implement what you say is to add a new category called ammo, where bases will build torpedo ammo, ships will carry a limited amount of ammo, and when they run out they cannot fire torpedoes anymore until they get more ammo, it has to be separate than the fuel and only a very small amount available for it to work. But it will be a PITA to implement and to manage. it is better to adjust the useful properties of beam weapons, such as DPS, range, and size to make them more competitive.

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 6:34:05 PM)
It's the same as fuel in essence. It should use a copy of those mechanics. With the difference that its needed to fire guns instead of lasers. I'd love it. You? [:D]

Astorax -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 6:52:59 PM)
Umm nah. I actually like to micromanage a bit but having to worry about fuel AND ammo is getting beyond the macro experience this game is purported to be all about. That sounds like a good idea for a mod, however.

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 6:56:09 PM)
Yes but that's the point Astorax; You woudn't have to worry about it. You build supply ships for fuel & collier ships for ammo. The automation takes care of everything. I woudn't know how to mod this in right now unfortunately. Would you like it without micro worries ? [:)]

Astorax -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 7:02:09 PM)
But that is the point, Bartje. This idea would add another layer of micro no matter how you implemented it just because you would have to make sure you had enough fuel and/or ammo ships and that yes, indeed, they DID go resupply before your big invasion. If this was done, I would feel obligated to check these things every single time before an invasion and I'm sure many others would too.

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 7:13:31 PM)
Oh ok too bad. But what about fuel right now? Weapons use fuel right now too and moving costs fuel as well. (this part of the mechanism(s) is already in place as far as I know) Don't you already check fuel levels? I don't usually. The Automation takes really good care of it for me so far. I guess I don't really understand why you would have to check fuel and / or ammunition but to each his own I suppose. I'm glad you like the idea though ! [:)]

Astorax -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 7:20:57 PM)
Weapons do not use fuel per se; They use energy. Said energy is generated by fuel, yes. But, look at space ports - they can have enough energy collectors to constantly fire all weapons forever and never use a single liter of fuel. And yes, I DO check my fuel levels before I send a fleet to attack, everytime. I don't like to be blue-balled like that and if my checking it to make sure prevents that, I'll do it.

taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 7:24:07 PM)
the point is, unless torpedo ammo is EXTREMELY limited (and I mean ridiculous values), it will still be better to use torpedoes... which is why one of the other dozens of suggestions to fix it is better. I narrowed it down to the 7 good ways of fixing it (and there are dozens of not so good ways)

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/14/2010 7:43:21 PM)
Taltamir, you don't believe that point defense can be used to negate torpedoes / missiles ? The solution you proposed are very good yes! I suppose just like thinking about potential neatness [:)]

Pipewrench -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 12:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir the point is, unless torpedo ammo is EXTREMELY limited (and I mean ridiculous values), it will still be better to use torpedoes... which is why one of the other dozens of suggestions to fix it is better. I narrowed it down to the 7 good ways of fixing it (and there are dozens of not so good ways) I have read all your points and I agree with most of what your say. Can you give a real number to what you believe would be a balance that would satisify your negative vibe, I am only trying to see what is out there and if all of us can put our brains together we can solve this. Give not 7 but 1 that you think can solve this. And before you caps lock on something or call something ridiculous understand that is what the point I was making so with that flame in mind I wish you well. If you in the future wish to bartar about other ideas I ask that we keep this civil. I

Pipewrench -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 1:24:45 AM)
Looking back on what you said I can agree. But what do you suggest we throw at the problem first? This is not a snark but where in the battles do you think that beam can semi-compete? Increase cargo hold on torps, limit firing time? Throw me your best idea that the AI can handle and that can semi-balance things without creating rock-paper-sissors.

taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 4:36:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pipewrench quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir the point is, unless torpedo ammo is EXTREMELY limited (and I mean ridiculous values), it will still be better to use torpedoes... which is why one of the other dozens of suggestions to fix it is better. I narrowed it down to the 7 good ways of fixing it (and there are dozens of not so good ways) I have read all your points and I agree with most of what your say. Can you give a real number to what you believe would be a balance that would satisify your negative vibe, I am only trying to see what is out there and if all of us can put our brains together we can solve this. Give not 7 but 1 that you think can solve this. And before you caps lock on something or call something ridiculous understand that is what the point I was making so with that flame in mind I wish you well. If you in the future wish to bartar about other ideas I ask that we keep this civil. I You misunderstood my english there. I did not call your suggestion ridiculous. And using all caps for a single word is not shouting, but a standard method of emphasizing that word (equivalent to bolding it or italicizing it). So I have kept things perfectly civil. I said a ridiculous value would be needed, this is a legitimate use of the word that means a very high value; not that your suggestion was bad. The suggestion of higher fuel requirement can be made to work, but only if it requires very very high values. A small increase will not be effective (as we discussed before), a very very large increase will be effective, but in a frustrating manner. With torpedoes remaining a superior weapon, but consuming lots of power. You could then optimize for it using high end fuel tanks and reactors. Which means that torpedoes are completely unusable unless you have max tech fuel storage and reactors and design a ship which uses those heavily. (which the AI still doesn't do)... resulting in torpedoes being usless up to a certain point (depending on the exact cost given) followed by then torpedoes dominating again. (and that is a problem because we are talking about tech levels)

Fishman -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 5:41:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stardog Hey FISH - How's/What about a Set Load Time for the Torp's ? Exists, it's under ROF. Beams are more or less completely superior to any torp there. quote: ORIGINAL: Stardog In the Game it's a recharge rate I think .? But maybe there could be a reload time as well? &/Or If not maybe Jack-Up the Recharge rate for Torp's.? Doesn't really matter how you approach it: The bottom line is that short-range needs superior DPS compared to equivalent LR to be competitive: Otherwise you have a dominant strategy.

taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 3:56:48 PM)
In general the thread tended to veer far off into the realm of wildly changing the game, creating lots of new content specific to what each person wanted, etc. Even my own first suggestion was to alter the way beams and torpedoes work significantly (I originally suggested to make beams long range and torpedoes short). The AI is actually quite good in controlling ships, the approaches (standoff, and point blank) are effective for their intended design. Standoff manages to stay out of range and pelt with long range weapons (I have had the AI do that to me; and vice versa). So the added effectiveness "longest range weapon" is that you can fire without being fired at, especially versus star bases and other stationary targets. (Although standoff does fly around in circles around a stationary target instead of just sitting still and firing, losing out on their collectors) In retrospect, I think a rebalance should ideally be: 1. Simple. Things like "make lasers shoot down torpedoes" or "add fighters and chaff, and point defense, etc." are not simple. 2. Maintain the current "feel" of the game. 3. Make various weapons each have their use (when they are the latest tech of course, its fine for them to be obsoleted when new tech is discovered) Right now we have lasers and torpedoes, torpedoes are long range, lasers are short range. Each class of weapons itself has short and long range which alternate along the tech tree. I recommend streamlining things a bit by doing away with the alternation within torpedoes and lasers. That is, make each torpedo weapon slightly longer range than the previous version, and each laser slightly longer than the previous, rather than the alternating back and forth. You could classify half the lasers and half the torpedoes as short range, and half the torpedoes and half lasers as long range, and then "alternate" between them as far as "upgrading" ships goes. But that would be confusing and not simple... neither would separate them into 4 range categories (SR Torp, LR torp, SR beam, LR beam). I suggest to Choose one type to be the "long range" (probably torpedoes since they are right now, but it really doesn't matter), and the other class to be short range. It is mostly an aesthetic choice on whether LR is torp or lasers. I will refer to them as LR and SR for describing the effects soon. Now for damage. Initial damage (aka, damage per single hit) is completely irrelevant except for unusual circumstances (in theory super-weapons, but in practice not, but I will get to them later). What matters is really DPS, but not even DPS in of itself, but DPS per size unit, followed by DPS per money unit. DPS per energy is in interesting case; DPS per energy is actually a function of DPS per size (and to a lesser degree cost), since it requires more reactors, more fuel, etc... But those scale oddly with advancement in tech for fuel and reactors etc.; also the actual increase is very very small, as such it makes very little difference (but it would still be nice if it was streamlined a bit). The king of measurements is DPS per size... for a ship, for a starport there is no size limit so it’s DPS/money. To even attempt to balance each weapon's DPS needs to be calculated, as well as DPS/size, DPS/money, and DPS/energy. The DPS/size should: 1. be greater for SR weapons than LR weapons 2. Fall off more rapidly for SR weapons (LR should have very little damage drop off due to range, if any). 3. Increase a more streamlined amount each level. This should take care of the balance for basic weapons... you either go with long range and standoff, or short range and close in... And in either case more engines then the enemy are good (either to maintain the standoff or to close in on the pray). In regards to super weapons... this one is a bit tricky, there are tons of ways to go about a rebalance there... I imagine that keeping them "super" would be to significantly increase their initial shot damage, but require much longer cooldown... 10x the damage and 10x the cooldown... that way they could actually one shot enemies. I am not sure if that is the way you want to go about it though. Another approach is just to give them either the best DPS/size or DPS/price, with the first one making all non-super weapons obsolete on ships (but important on spaceport), and the second making them better for spaceports than ships. In regards to specific weapons... The shaktur firestorm is just not a very good torpedo... and its ability to bombard is largely irrelevant. I would give it the same work over that the other torpedoes get, decide where it should be in the tech tree, then give it appropriate DPS/size and range. The megatron Z4 isn't a weapon but a shield, but it is also pretty bad (especially with being auto upgraded to). It should be located way down on the tech tree, or redesigned. Since the shields just before it are 480 strength and 1.3 regen (and same size), it should beat or match both figures if it aims to stay at the top. (And shield strength is far more important that shield regen) The novacore 700, the ultimate reactor, is the most efficient (2.5 vs. 2.59 of the previous tech). But it takes nearly twice the space AND outputs half the power... meaning you need about 4 of them (2x the space and 4x the money) to generate the same amount of power... this is pretty terrible. Again, I am in favor of more gradual improvements... it should be better on all aspects. That is, if relegated to a lower tech level then it should get worse efficiency (between its own and the previous level). The Death Ray and Devastator Beam both have terrible DPS/size and DPS/money. DPS/energy is effectively just DPS/size and DPS/money, but it is significantly less costly to increase energy. So it largely doesn't matter. Suggestions here are to either vastly increase damage and cooldown to make them one shot ships or to greatly increase DPS/size or DPS/cost. World annihilator laser... could also use a mild increase in damage and recharge rate. 8000 is supposed to be enough to blow up a planet? a capital ship with 30 top tier shields has 14400 shields, and with 30 torpedoes deals 2160 damage per shot (and shoots MUCH more often than the world annihilator)...

Bartje -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 4:13:30 PM)
World anihilator should do 999999999 damage. Imagine seeing that for the first time [X(] Even if it's just cosmetic and simply one shot kills everything. Perhaps the World anihilator damage could be based on the targets mass / size? The more massive a target the more damage it receives. Anything the size of a small moon (hint! hint!) gets blown to smithereens! (apply multiplier based on mass) I like your ideas for a rebalance. You are right that for 1.05 it will probably be a simply shuffle of the figures. Once they are done with that though it would be awesome to get some more strategic depth by varying weapon types and the introduction of fighters / bombers / carriers. And lets not forget point defense... awesome... [:)] Cheers!

taltamir -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 4:33:26 PM)
i like the idea of world annihilator one shotting anything. and displaying a huge number for damage. it is appropriate. that way the real issue for world annihilator is the recharge rate... you need to swarm it with a large number of ships... it can one shot any one of those, but only every so often, and in the meanwhile...

RSF777 -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 9:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rustyallan Torpedoes are king. As it stands, torpedoes are king. Load up enough and you can demolish an enemy easily. What are torpedoes? Per the in-game description, they are a bolt of energy that homes in on their target. I have a problem with any bolt of energy homing in on anything, but I can see some ways that might be plausible.(static discharges) I'd prefer to think of them as some sort of plasma ball that just moves in a straight line. Especially considering how slow they are. Some ways I can think of to counter is are to make them easier to evade. Smaller ships get a bonus to evasion and vector thrusters would also affect it. Agreed, excellent idea, reminds me of Netrek once again, which has very well balanced torpedos and phasers, even though its a different type of game. quote: ORIGINAL: Rustyallan Hard points and hull restrictions. I like the freedom of defining what an escort or a frigate should be for myself. On the other hand, I can see where implementing restrictions on the number of each weapon type based on the role, as is currently done for freighters in 1.0.4.4, would be a simple patch for the issue. It wouldn't fix the problem though as players would just avoid building the more restricted ships. In the US navy ship classes are used more for designating the role of the ship rather than the size, there are destroyers the same size/larger than cruisers. I don't disagree with hull limits, but I think they should at least overlap a little. This would also have to be balanced with construction tech, smallest cruiser size could be 500, smallest/largest destroyers could be 330/600 or something like that.

Pipewrench -> RE: Weapon balance for the future (5/15/2010 10:14:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bartje World anihilator should do 999999999 damage. Imagine seeing that for the first time [X(] lol, good call. It would be like eating a bowl of chili with too many jalapeno's. takes time to warm up but the fireball is spectucular and painful.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875