RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (Full Version)

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



Message

Raap -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:38:22 AM)

In the space of 14 in-game seconds:

Titan Beam
Space = 6
Shots = 10
Energyus = 280
TotalDmg = 290
MaxRange = 560
DmgFallof= 4 per 100

Plasma Thunderbolt
Space = 12
Shots = 7
EnergyUs = 640
TotalDmg = 350
Maxrange = 990
DmgFallof= 4 per 100

At 500 range: Dmg falloff = dmg*range*numberofshots
Titan Beam dmg = 290 - (4*5*10) = 90 damage * 2 = 180, since we can fit two titan beams for every thunderbolt, which also evens out the energy usage.
Plasma Thunderbolt dmg = 350 - (4*5*7) = 210.

Obviously, the closer you get the better the titan beam does since having two of them gives you a max dmg potential of 580 vs 350 for the plasma thunderbolt. At close distances they'll be significantly more damaging than the thunderbolt.

However, the range of the thunderbolt is awesome. That gives it the ability to keep titan beam enemies at a distance, where the titan beam can't even reach it let alone match its damage.



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:38:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Unforeseen


quote:

ORIGINAL: pycco

i know i tested it myself.


Really? You didn't post any of the results. So how can we know you actually tested it?


LOL, so dont believe me no skin off my back just trying to have a conversion about the aspect of designing a ship. and how "tests" can be skewed by the tester a number of way such as giving half of the information about a design when reporting the result.

example "I put 5O Shatters on a frigate, then removed them all and began adding Torpedoes until the damage matched up. It took 3O. It takes just 3O torpedo launchers to do what 5O lasers can do, plus better range and considerably less research points"

thanks spidey [&o][&o]



Unforeseen -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:44:35 AM)

You didn't read my more recent post did you...? I never said that the shatter doesn't "ultimately" outdps the torpedo. The point is you have to put so many guns on the ship that the cost becomes absurd and not worth it. So when the number of guns is kept in a reasonable realm in terms of cost efficiency it does not stack up against the torpedo. I built two ships, both with the same components. I did not go to cap, because i knew already that i could put more shatters on the ship and eventually out dps the torpedoes. This is NOT AT ALL the point of this thread. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you people.

Perhaps it would help if i rewrote the OP and put in big bold letters THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAXIMUM DPS POTENTIAL VS TORPEDOES, IT IS ABOUT EFFICIENCY AND UTILITY It is costly to use so many guns, and massively inefficient, over tiered, and can be kited for that matter.



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:47:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Unforeseen

You didn't read my more recent post did you...? I never said that the shatter doesn't "ultimately" outdps the torpedo. The point is you have to put so many guns on the ship that the cost becomes absurd and not worth it. So when the number of guns is kept in a reasonable realm in terms of cost efficiency it does not stack up against the torpedo. I built two ships, both with the same components. I did not go to cap, because i knew already that i could put more shatters on the ship and eventually out dps the torpedoes. This is NOT AT ALL the point of this thread. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you people.

ok so the point of the thread is not about how effective the shatter force lasers is then what is the thread about?



Unforeseen -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:52:35 AM)

I give up, your like those people i encounter at work that think the cones leading up to the building are indicating "parking spots" rather than indicators for the line throughway despite the arrows painted on the pavement.



Aeson -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:53:19 AM)

Unforeseen, if you would mind providing a reason why your torpedo boat design happens to be comparable to your laser boat design, I wouldn't be so hard on you. However, given that the only difference between the two ships is the armament, the torpedo boat is:

1. About 250 size units larger than the laser boat
2. Slower and less agile than the laser boat due to being ~250 size units larger
3. About as expensive as the laser boat, mostly due to the non-weapon components
4. Probably slightly more fuel-efficient, though only in combat and the laser boat has plenty of space for fuel cells to make up for it
5. Maybe some other things I'm not thinking of right now

Perhaps if you showed us that your torpedo boat was a reasonable amount cheaper to purchase, maintain, and operate than the laser boat is, you'd have the foundations of an argument for your case. Perhaps if in your situation you have no access to Emeros Crystal but have plenty of access to Nekros Stone you'd have an argument (a situational one, but nevertheless an argument). Perhaps if you did anything other than BLINDLY COMPARING DAMAGE NUMBERS I'd listen. Until then, though, do you know what I have to say? "When an equal-size ship armed exclusively with Epsilon Torpedoes of any kind meets an equal-size ship armed exclusively with Shatterforce Lasers, it'll be slaughtered." Why? Because unless you can give me a good reason why I should build a size-700 torpedo boat but only a size-500 laser boat, I'm not going to pay heed to your argument as you've provided no evidence that it's a remotely fair comparison. There needs to be a reason to compare the weapons on this basis, such as the difference in maintenance/purchase costs or the amount of fuel required for combat. Also be aware, if you do decide to actually justify your argument, that cost isn't necessarily the best argument out there, because saving 2 grand on the upkeep might be reasonable now when you've got only 20 grand in total cashflow but it becomes rather trivial when your empire grows to the point that your cashflow has grown to the point where you can support as many ships as you need (or want) regardless of the cost of an individual vessel. I would also argue that, barring extreme cost disparity, a ship that can go toe-to-toe with two or more equal-size vessels or toe-to-toe with a much larger vessel is a better investment than the two equal-size vessels or one much larger vessel in most situations.



Spidey -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 2:54:41 AM)


quote:

I used the same ship, with the same components except for the weapons.

Yeah, you used the same ship except one used 200 units of size for weapons and one used 450 units of size for weapons. Same ship indeed. Now add on the life support and hab modules needed for that extra size and then look at the right side of the screen in the movement box. How fast is it?

You know what, I just had a go at one such ship, using my regular early game torp destroyer, and with 30 eps torps, 10 life support and hab modules, 16 proton thrusters, 5 thrust vectors, 4 shields, 9 armor, and 3 novacore reactors to power the whole thing, it had a total size of 745, an acceleration of 4.5, a cruise speed of 12, and a turn rate of 10. Tell me, at what stage in the game is that a viable ship?

Yes, my early game torp destroyer, by the way. I use them early game, not because they're great, but because I want to get to thunderbolts ASAP, since they're pretty damn immense. I used go straight for shockwaves until that point, but lately I'm more inclined to velo shards. Don't really know why. They don't pack much of a punch but I'm having the feeling that their better range and greater speed gives a relative edge. But either way it's a temp thing until the thunderbolts. And then I'll be all thunderbolts and all bases will crumble before me while my boats are hovering well outside of range of all the heavy duty close range guns on the station.

Then and only then do I start caring about beam weaps or, which is a lot more likely, getting assault pods and fighters to max, as well as getting logistics all done.

quote:

This whole thing felt like i was on the steam forums. Regardless, Locarnus's mod wins, solves/will solve this issue no matter who was right.

Yeah, it felt like the Steam forums because people were asking you to make a case instead of just shout angrily and expect to be taken seriously. It totally did, didn't it? I don't know what Locarnus has done in his mod, but feel free to share those details and we can discuss his changes too.



Spidey -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:00:07 AM)

God dammit, you people keep sneaking in comments while I'm snailing away. I HATE YOU ALL!! (I don't, actually)

@ Aeson
You're far too reasonable and diplomatic.



Unforeseen -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:08:39 AM)

Ugh for the last time, seriously. I have more important things to do? I'm basing this off a ship with the exact same components that has not yet reached max cap. The ship with the missiles costs less in production and maintenance than the ship with the laser by a tremendous percentage...


Here is an "empty" build, 3O torpedo launchers with nothing else. Price: 4OO1, Maint: 1376, Max Energy use: 31O, firepower: 63O. Higher range, can kite laser boats. Size: 45O

Here is an empty laser boat with 5O lasers: Price: 5418, Maint: 1412, Max Energy: 445, Firepower: 6OO, Lower range, can be kited. Size: 2OO.

As shown, it is clear that in the long run you WILL get more firepower if you keep adding lasers than you will from torpedo launchers as you will have to stop somewhere in order to start adding the other components. You however, end up paying more for you ship and use up more energy which means you need more reactors, and not to mention more hab/life support. Going head to head against a short range weapon using ship, sure the shatterforce will surely obliterate it but at great cost when the same thing could have been achieved with your basic torpedoes at a lower cost in research points.




ldog -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:08:49 AM)

All pretty sound advice you and Aeson give.
I've been re-evaluating velo shards and the shatterforce myself lately, but as you said only before thunderbolts and titans. While I wouldn't rip out all my shockwaves (and phasers) and impacts for them, they are situationally useful.



Unforeseen -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:11:15 AM)

Eh, i wasn't really shouting. I may not have provided every bit of detail but i was being prodded by people who mostly were providing no counter information at all and were missing the point entirely. I "still" think your missing the point.

I admit i am not against using the weapon, just not as a primary weapon. I fill in the gaps with it, because i always have left over space. I just strongly believe that it's damage could have been a bit higher for the expense required to make it productive. Or perhaps lowering it a tier or two.

The mod i mentioned is pretty cool and you should check it out. I'm looking forward to the final version :D



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:18:38 AM)




[image]local://upfiles/44822/7A1B4E48925944BB8E72BDAB60C452F3.jpg[/image]



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:20:16 AM)

these are t1 SF t2 torps

[image]local://upfiles/44822/4ADE34EE678F49D8880698A05A92FE51.jpg[/image]



Spidey -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:28:49 AM)

quote:

Here is an "empty" build, 3O torpedo launchers with nothing else. Price: 4OO1, Maint: 1376, Max Energy use: 31O, firepower: 63O. Higher range, can kite laser boats. Size: 45O

Here is an empty laser boat with 5O lasers: Price: 5418, Maint: 1412, Max Energy: 445, Firepower: 6OO, Lower range, can be kited. Size: 2OO.

As shown, it is clear that in the long run you WILL get more firepower if you keep adding lasers than you will from torpedo launchers as you will have to stop somewhere in order to start adding the other components. You however, end up paying more for you ship and use up more energy which means you need more reactors, and not to mention more hab/life support.

Now you're starting to do it right, Unforeseen. Thank you for that. But we're not quite there yet, I'm afraid.

From your numbers, an Eps torp costs 45.9 credits in maintenance while a Shatter laser costs 28.2 credits in maintenance. With reference to the numbers I posted previously, meaning 14 torps vs 50 lasers, we get a total of 642.6 for the torp boat and 1410 for the laser boat. That's a difference of ~800 credits even with one mroe reactor. That's not too bad, is it? Considering how much more DPS you're actually getting? Considering the costs we're reaching regardless if we're dedicating 200 units of size to weapons?

Another thing to be aware of is that you actually can't kit the laser boat at all with the torp boat unless you're adding a whole lot more engines as well, which is definitely going to offset the maintenance advantage and take the ship size to an entirely different level.

Final thing to take into account is that you're comparing "firepower". That's really not a good metric to use. It's essentially just alpha strike damage without any consideration of refire rate, damage loss, energy consumption, or damage per size. Some weapons have an awesome alpha strike but fairly mediocre DPS and an even worse DPS per unit size. Some weapons have a mediocre alpha strike but a really good DPS.

The final final thing I feel like saying is that this whole weapons discussion is immensely interesting to me, but that it's also immensely complex. You cannot approach it simplistically and expect to end up with a useful answer. The system is just too complex for that. You have to consider numerous factors before getting a remotely detailed picture of the relative balance between the different weapons and even then it's a right headache to make heads and tails of things.



ldog -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:36:20 AM)

In reality you could cut 2 of those reactors off the torp ship since all that extra energy is going to waste.
I know for sake of argument the ship designs need to be more or less equal but it does illustrate the fact that a particular set of numbers don't show the whole picture.
The atrocious speed ensures that you wouldn't be able to make use of the extended ranges for very long (and yes I know these are just slapped together for the purpose of this discussion, so not by any means critiquing your ship design skills)




Spidey -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:40:14 AM)

Pycco, those ships are terribly slow, aren't they? Could we up the thrusters to 15? And the laser boat needs more energy if you're planning to sail and shoot at the same time, doesn't it? And the torp boat could do with two less reactors, I think, even with 15 thrusters. Also, you really only need about 50% more lasers to match the torps at DPS.

I know, exact same components, but that's not really a sensible comparison since it means both ships fail to reach their potential. [:)]



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:40:19 AM)

there updated



Raap -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:46:14 AM)

With the upgraded shatter vs first upgraded epsilon, we're looking at:

261 - 1*3*29 = 174
374 - 3*3*22 = 176

The top being the shatterforce, range being 300. This is a single shatterforce, so at 300 range you're getting the same amount of damage for around 1/4 the space used. There's no comparison, shatterforce is much, much, much better.



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 3:57:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raap

With the upgraded shatter vs first upgraded epsilon, we're looking at:

261 - 1*3*29 = 174
374 - 3*3*22 = 176

The top being the shatterforce, range being 300. This is a single shatterforce, so at 300 range you're getting the same amount of damage for around 1/4 the space used. There's no comparison, shatterforce is much, much, much better.


better is determined by what is worse
one thing that does not show up is the DPS
SF is 1.5
torp is 2.9
once again this is t2 torps and t1 SF



DeadlyShoe -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 4:00:53 AM)

quote:

And why would you research multiple weapon branches anyway instead of getting to the ultimates as fast as freaking possible? Why would you bother with Shatter 6 or Eps 3? What purpose is served by researching those instead of the weapons they unlock? I'd take Velo Shard 1 or Shockwave 1 over Eps 3 any day of the week without a second thought and I'd go through Impact Assault Blasters and get Titan Beam 1 before I'd even think about Shatter 6. There's just no point in going into a deadend tech instead of unlocking what is clearly a better weapon that even can be improved later on.

if you're in a war you might be better served by improving existing equipment instead of pulling ships off the line.

though tbh Refitting is probably too cheap.

Special techs like the massive shield projector of corvidian are pretty cool, wish more of em were like that.



Raap -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 4:03:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pycco

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raap

With the upgraded shatter vs first upgraded epsilon, we're looking at:

261 - 1*3*29 = 174
374 - 3*3*22 = 176

The top being the shatterforce, range being 300. This is a single shatterforce, so at 300 range you're getting the same amount of damage for around 1/4 the space used. There's no comparison, shatterforce is much, much, much better.


better is determined by what is worse
one thing that does not show up is the DPS

Well, the numbers were taken at 29 shots from shatterforce and 22 shots from the torpedo. That's 63.8 seconds, giving a dps for both(~) of 175/63.8 = 2.7 at 300 range. As you get closer, the dmg will begin to favor the torpedo more, since it has a high dmg falloff with range.



pycco -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 4:04:52 AM)

ya each SF fires nearly 2 times per the 1 shot of the torpedoes -.1 for the SF fire rate.



Aeson -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 5:34:00 AM)

Unforeseen, look at what pycco has done. This is something along the lines of what it would have been most helpful for you to do, and could have been useful in constructing your arguments.

For example, we can say that pycco's laser boat has a firepower of 140 using Shatterforce Is. This means that the laser boat has a DPS of ~93 at 0 range, whereas the torpedo boat has a DPS of ~53 at 0 range, and that the torpedo boat has about a 50% range advantage. Now we can start evaluating the trade-offs in each design, and decide whether or not we'd rather use one or the other.

Let's compare:
Range - Torpedo Boat wins; 460 range vesus 320 gives a nearly 50% range advantage.
Speed - Laser Boat wins; 25 speed versus 21 probably makes up for the difference in range fairly well, though I could not say for certain.
Turning - Torpedo Boat wins; 16 deg/s versus 14 deg/s probably doesn't matter that much, though.
DPS - Laser Boat wins - ~93 DPS versus ~53 DPS at point blank is no contest, though I cannot say if either loses DPS fast enough with range to really make a big difference here; since Epsilons I believe have a more severe range penalty, I would expect the comparison to favor the Shatterforce more overall until the engagement range exceeds that of the Shatterforce.
Purchase Cost and Maintenance - Torpedo Boat wins - $1400 less up front, and $150 less maintenance. Not a big advantage unless you're really strapped for cash.
Shields - both equal. No advantage either side.

Now we come to something that could be a big deal: maximum (theoretical) combat time and effective operating range. As can be seen, both ships carry 325 units of fuel, and can convert 3.84 units of fuel into 1000 energy. Thus, these two designs can each supply about 85,000 units of energy from a full load of fuel. This translates to a maximum combat time of about 910 seconds on the Torpedo Boat (less 9 seconds per 13 spent warping or 32 spend cruising), or 316 seconds on the Laser Boat (less 3 seconds per 13 spend warping or 28 spent cruising). This can, in theory, be a big deal. In this case, however, it probably isn't, as 300 seconds is still 5 minutes, and that's plenty for most combats. What it does impact in a way that matters is the effective operating range - if you were to strike at a target 4 sectors out, that'd be 4*1322/13.07 seconds spent warping, and the same amount going home, which cuts 560 seconds off the Torpedo Boat's combat time (leaving 350 seconds of combat time) or 187 seconds off the Laser Boat's combat time (leaving 129 seconds of combat time). This indicates that the effective combat radius of the Laser Boat is lower than that of the Torpedo Boat, and gives us a limit to how far out our ships can fly if we want to maintain continual fleet presence at a target location while unable or unwilling to provide a nearby refueling point, and is an excellent place to start an argument for the relative merits of one design versus another; in this case, the Torpedo Boat design is somewhat favored. However, it should be noted that at roughly 1/3 of the maximum straight-line jump range, the Laser Boat can still engage in combat for about 2 minutes before needing to return for fuel, and that this range is a full four sectors. That the Torpedo Boat can engage for roughly 9 minutes continuously at this range is an advantage when trying to maintain constant fleet presence, but not so much of one that I'd be terribly in favor of the Torpedo Boat for it - 2 minutes is a lot of combat time, and if I'm looking to engage four sectors away for anything more than a raid, I'm probably also looking to set up a closer refueling point, by way of gas mines, resupply ships, or conquest of colonies; additionally, two minutes of combat ought to be plenty for a raid.

Is my evaluation of the two designs perfect? Unlikely. Are pycco's designs the best any of us can come up with? Maybe, maybe not, but they're examples and someone can probably come up with situations for which pycco's designs are well-optimized and other situations for which they're poorly optimized; besides that, a lot of designs really come down to personal preference. Are the trade-offs that I've noted above, and any others that someone can think of, enough to make a difference when deciding to go with one design or the other? Perhaps. Having roughly 9 minutes of combat time 4 sectors from base is fairly appealing for full-scale wars or pirate hunts far from home. On the other hand, if I don't need to be fighting 4 sectors away from my nearest refueling point I probably don't want to be, unless it's a raid on something important, like the main base of an annoying group of pirates or a cluster of mines over relatively rare resources, and for that I probably don't need 9 minutes of combat time. It is nevertheless a starting point, and a better one than the empty designs you posted - comparing the cost of the weapons without the ship they're in is, to some degree, useful, but a large part of weapon effectiveness comes from the chassis bearing the guns, and so does a reasonable fraction of the ship cost.



msnevil -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 10:46:29 AM)

Downloaded universe, and I'm replying to this? [X(]

With universe, you can mod the weapon, problem solved. (components.txt and research.txt)exp below.

Excluding self modding:

1 Shatterforce laser is yes the weakest of all the level 6 weapons. If compared straight forward point blank range firing.

As a stand off weapon at maximum range, its equal to the titan beam, and losses at the maximum range of the impact assault blaster.

The beauty that is missed though, is the use of fleets using this weapon. At range 480, you have more ships hitting the target, then say range 310. This makes it a good early to possibly mid upper range weapon to use.

I usually switch around the time the ai starts using ablative metal armor to either phasers or titan beams.

Components.txt

1, Shatterforce Laser, 1, 1, laser2.wav, 48, 4, 0, 7, 320, 20, 310, 1, 1500, 0, 0, 3, 6, 5, 15, 5,

Research.txt

PROJECT ;4, Advanced Laser Focussing, 4, 2, 0, 19, 0, 0.0,
COMPONENT IMPROVEMENTS ;1, 4, 9, 390, 20, 370, 1, 2200, 0,
PARENTS ;3, N

PROJECT ;5, High Intensity Lasers, 6, 2, 0, 19, 0, 0.0,
COMPONENT IMPROVEMENTS ;1, 6, 12, 480, 20, 450, 1, 2200, 0,
PARENTS ;4, N




Unforeseen -> RE: Who designed the Shatterforce laser? (6/4/2014 11:23:29 AM)

Lol this thread. Ok thank you for finally actually posting a counter comparison, i no longer think your just trolling and concede. The weapon clearly has an advantage in terms of maximum capability, though i truly would never use it as a primary because it is inefficient in my book. I perfer cost effective means, and the kind of firepower the shatterforce brings to the table for that cost is more than would be required in the stage of the game that i would actually utilize the weapon as anything other than a filler. Essentially most of my ships are long range missile/torpedo turrets with a small number of shatterforce lasers. For me, using the shatterforce as a primary would be a massively wasteful, costly endeavour that ultimately would weaken by fleet considerably.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125