bonesbro -> RE: Weapon Discussion: Railgun vs Massive Railgun and Phasor (12/1/2011 7:35:07 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins We'll definitely take another look. However, if you consider it from the analysis I mentioned above and also factor in the effects of reactive armor (earlier tech weapons with much lower damage become much less effective as armor improves in the late game, giving the larger damage in one shot an added benefit vs. rate of fire-based dps) I think you'll find there's not really a downgrade in actual game effect. The effectiveness of each weapon against each armor type is also where the Phaser Lance gains some benefits. That sounds good, and I agree that there are some benefits (like effectiveness vs. reactive armor) that aren't captured in a pure numerical comparison. However, I suggest that you try to keep the DPS numbers even so that your research investment purchases you some kind of unambiguous upgrade. I think that the interesting choices in weapons should be between different classes of weapons or different forks of tech trees and not a choice to stop upgrading a tech tree. Perhaps, for missiles at least, Heavy Missiles should branch off of Concussion Missiles 2, with a dead end CM3 as an option. I quite like how you get a choice to branch off into a new tech area with future upgrade potential or to invest more in a dead-end to optimize your existing ships. It would be more interesting, though, if missiles had a second fork other than just Heavy Missiles. Perhaps... hmm, rockets, perhaps? Fast firing, short range, and mediocre damage-per-hit rockets would give you a good high DPS option at the cost of significant weakness against armor.
|
|
|
|