Aeson
Posts: 784
Joined: 8/30/2013
Status: offline
|
One of the things that you should consider in your spreadsheet isn't so much the total DPS of a given weapon, but rather how much DPS it can give you for the size you spent on it (i.e. divide the DPS of the weapon by the size of the weapon).
quote:
(4) Torps show a nice progression in dps, although the first level of Plasma Thunderbolt is weaker than the third level of Shockwaves. Perhaps consider decreasing Fire Rate of Plasma (first level) to be in line with the next two levels?
It's true that the Plasma Thunderbolt I isn't, strictly speaking, superior to the Shockwave Torpedo III (or, for that matter, the Velocity Shard III); the same applies to the Titan Beam I when compared with the Impact Assault Blaster III and the Shatterforce Laser III. However, the Plasma Thunderbolt I is not an upgrade of the Shockwave Torpedo III and Velocity Shard III, it's an alternative to the Shockwave Torpedo III and Velocity Shard III, and represents a kind of balance between those two weapons. Also, unlike either of these weapons, the Plasma Thunderbolt I can be further upgraded and is not an immediate dead-end, as far as research goes. If you decide to continue upgrading your torpedo ships, picking up Shockwave IIIs or Velocity Shard IIIs instead of Thunderbolt Is may be easier in the short-term (since if you were only upgrading one side of the torpedo tree picking up the second upgrade means you research a single level 7 tech rather than one each of level 4, 5, and 6 techs), but if you intend to keep using your ships, you'll eventually need to pick up the Plasma Thunderbolt anyways, and a level 7 tech that doesn't lead anywhere is kind of wasted research when you factor in that level 7 techs are also much more expensive than level 4, 5, or 6 techs. In fact, if the research cost at each tech level goes up by more than about 84% of the previous level's cost, that one level 7 tech would be more expensive than the three lower-level techs.
Beyond that, looking at the Plasma Thunderbolt I and comparing it to the Shockwave Torpedo III, the Plasma Thunderbolt I appears to be slightly superior, in terms of raw DPS and DPS per unit size, over most of the shared range band (the Plasma Thunderbolt is superior out to 500 range; from 500 range to 650 range, it's slightly inferior, and from 650 range to 690 range it becomes superior once again since the Shockwave Torpedo cannot shoot at those ranges, while beyond 690 range both weapons are about equal since neither can be used).
quote:
(2) Phaser Lances are really weaker than Phaser Cannons due to high Fire Rate (really fire interval). Should you perhaps consider lowering the Fire Rate instead of increasing damage?
Phaser Lances also have at least 50% more range than an equivalent tech level Phaser Cannon, and a fully upgraded Phaser Lance has just shy of double the range of a fully upgraded Phaser Cannon; Phaser Lances also always have a considerably higher per-shot damage than any level of Phaser Cannon, and sometimes that can be more important than raw DPS. DPS, whether it be on a per-gun or a per-unit size basis, is not the only factor to consider when balancing weapons.
quote:
(5) Missiles show a nice progression in dps, but advance missiles are quite weak. Could increase dps to low double digits by increasing the damage value or decreasing Rire Rate, though what I'd really like to see is additional missile types added to the game.
One of the advantages of missiles over torpedoes and blasters is that there's only six techs that need to be researched in order to have a fully-upgraded top-of-the-tech-tree weapon. Torpedoes and Blasters each require 9 techs (8 for blasters if you start with the basic Maxos Blaster), which is a significant increase in the minimum required research to obtain that top-of-the-tree weapon.
quote:
(3) Similarly, Heavy and Massive Rail Guns are weaker than earlier versions. Perhaps a decrease in Fire Rate to address this?
In all honesty, basic railguns are just not that good once the engagement ranges start climbing and decent armor comes into play. Even the heavy and massive railguns don't have particularly competitive ranges compared to similar-tech weapons, but the basic railguns are incredibly outranged once real mid-game weapons start coming into play, and are large enough that you may have difficulties securing yourself a railgun ship sufficiently faster than a similar blaster design to make it reasonable to close the range. Massive Railguns do have a slight bonus to help counterbalance this in that they are bombardment weapons, unlike all other ship-to-ship weapons in the game aside from the Shaktur FireStorm (which is a significantly better weapon, but which is also much harder to get unless you happen to be playing Boskara).
I will however say that railguns are, in a way, good for tactics involving swarms of small, fast ships. Pound for pound, railguns are generally worse than other weapons anyways, except in the early game (and even then, they have a fairly significant range disadvantage, which, if you keep using the basic railguns to the end of the game, only gets worse as time goes on), so you might as well go in for easily-replaced vessels that close quickly and get off a few shots rather than the durable big slow(ish) ships that other weapon types tend to favor. Build a bunch of little ships, send them swarming at an enemy ship, and you might take a few losses, but the shots that get through the shields have a chance to cause enough harm to force your opponent's ship to retreat, and that may be all you need out of the engagement. It's still better to kill the opponent, but good luck doing that with railguns in a 'fair' fight, and also remember that this is of more value on the defensive than on the offensive - no matter how badly you damage that size-3000 spaceport or the size-800 defensive bases surrounding it, it's never going to run away. Also remember that getting into railgun range of your opponent puts your ship into range of every other weapon in the game (except possibly a less-developed railgun), which would likely cause some survivability issues when trying to take down a station (of course, if you're intending to fight a station at close range, you might want to have a specialized design just for that rather than using the cheap little gunboats to engage a target that can destroy one of them per volley or something like that).
|
Printable Version
RE: Weapons Balancing - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread