Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Limitless on September 03, 2019, 06:05:50 PM

Title: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Limitless on September 03, 2019, 06:05:50 PM
TL;DR: they are constantly outranged by ballistic, and when they're not they don't do any hard flux damage. Also a lack of variety. PD is fine and not really discussed.

Small mounts:

Ballistic weapons that fit in these mounts are plenty, from the light needler to the light assult gun to the light mortar to the railgun. Energy weapons have the IR Pulse Laser and antimatter blaster, which do hard flux and are both outranged by all the non-PD ballistics. They've got the Ion Blaster, which is practically useless on its own, and the tactical laser, which is also useless on its own.

The range on the AM blaster is fine, as it fills a special role. The range on the IR pulse is okay, because 100 difference is acceptable in the chaos of combat. The tactical laser isn't too bad where it is, given it's meant to work with other weapons and only does 75 dps anyway. The ion blaster is where the real problems begin to show, because it's clearly meant to work with on of the larger weapons except...

Medium mounts:

This is where the ballistic weapons begin to really shine. here the jump from 600-700 range to 700-1000 is made. Some of the most commonly used ballistic weapons are the Hypervelocity Driver and the Heavy Mauler, which both have a range of 1000. All non-PD non-graviton beam energy weapons have a range of 600. Thats 400u of distance (over 9 seconds in an Apogee, 5 seconds in an Aurora) that your high-tech destroyer or cruiser has to cross before it can even begin to fire, througout which it's taking hard flux damage which limits it from using its weapons when it finally gets into range.

On a ship that can mount these guns, any ship relying on energy weapons for their hard flux is at a disticnt disadvantage. This is why the Aurora, Apogee, Shrike and Medusa perfrom worse than their corresponding low-tech/midline counterparts. Beam weapons are especially useless here, as they don't really pressure ships that can absorb 200 flux without too much of an issue, eg most ships with a medium ballistic mount.

Large mounts:

There are three main energy weapons that fit large mounts, the autopulse laser, the plasma cannon and the tachyon lance.

The autopulse laser is a worse version of the Onlaught's thermal pulse cannon. It uses more flux, has lower range and does less damage. For a large energy weapon, this is a little bit terrible. If it used a bit less flux and did a bit less damage, this might make a good medium weapon.

The plasma cannon has the highest sustained DPS in the game, does hard flux damage, and uses the most amount of flux overall. However, compared to the mjolnir cannon, it uses significantly more flux, has a shorter range, but does a a fair amount more damage and has no EMP component.

The lance is excellent right where it is and I don't think it needs changing. It's essencially a Super Beam that peirces some shield depending on hard flux.

Beams:

There are four beam weapons, the crappy general one (tactical laser), the graviton beam, and the large but very bad graviton beam (high intensity laser) and the ion beam. The first two have distinct roles and perfrom admirably, but could use a damage buff with corresponding flux useage buff, or additional, more powerful weapons with these higher stats.

The high intensity laser is next to useless for a large mount. It does 500 base damage but is halved to shields, does no hard flux damage and has no special effects. This essencially means that it's doing 250 damage to someone's shield for 500 flux. In all cases, I would rather put a graviton beam in it's place. Beam weapons are mostly for pressure and secondly for poke damage, and this weapon has it's priorities the wrong way around.

The ion beam does well with its special effect, but suffers in a high tech fleet thanks to a lack of hard flux, and doesn't have the tachyon lance's high burst damage to help it out. In short, it's fine

The AI doesn't really know how to handle beams though. Steady AI (the default for non-officered ships) tries to get in range of its longest range non-missile weapon, and stay in that range unless it thinks it has an advantage. This seems to include beams. Beams work best when they have a source of hard flux as a compliment, which if armed with anything else but a HVD/HM, it won't get.

So what is the point of energy weapons?

Energy weapons are short range, high flux using weapons. This is let down by the fact that the ranges between weapon sizes don't really match up, and despite the fact that they do a lot of damage, the extreme range disadvantage they have vs ballistics leaves them inferior overall.

Energy beams are the opposite, long range, low flux usage weapons, except the ion beam which has a special effect instead. All beams make excellent support weapons, maintaining pressure and allowing flanks to happen and overloads more likely. This is what makes the midline Eagle so effective, a combo of graviton, an ion beam and HVD/heavy mauler makes for a well rounded ship that the AI works with well.

Proposed resolutions:

Energy needs at least one long range hard flux weapon for each mount size. Somewhere around 600-700 for small, 700-800 for medium and 900 for large, similar to ballistic weapons. This would balance them against the extreme range of the HVD and heavy mauler, while maintaining the ballistic range advantage. A modular version of the Thermal Pulse Cannon, even if generally inferior to its onslaught counterpart, would not go amiss.

Energy weapons need more variety in general. The large difference in ranges between small and large hurts the Apogee, and the very short ranges and high flux usage hurts the Aurora. More energy weapons with different ranges and flux usage would alleviate this and buff high tech ships in general where they need it most: cruisers and destroyers.

Large energy weapons (aside from the PD and the lance) need a buff overall. A buff to 800 range would go a long way. There's a reason there aren't any large energy mounts on the conquest.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 06:27:46 PM
The point of energy weapons seems to be made for high-tech ships, to offset their superior mobility and flux stats.

In early Starfarer/Starsector (before 0.6.5a), energy had unlimited ammo, but ballistics had limited ammo just like missiles.  Energy weapons' main advantage was unlimited ammo.  Around 0.6.5a, ballistics got clips like TPCs/autopulse, then got unlimited ammo, destroying energy weapons main advantage over ballistics.

Large energy weapons were buffed in 0.9x, and they are generally good.  Plasma cannon has huge DPS, more efficient than ballistic's Mjolnir, and plasma eats projectiles and fighters and keeps on going.  High Intensity Laser melts armor away very fast.  If I had a large hybrid, plasma cannon and tachyon lance are good contenders.  The only large weapon that is really bad is Paladin PD, because it is so inefficient that unskilled Paragon will overload just from firing a few.

Medium energy weapons are underwhelming.  Heavy Blaster is good, if too inefficient.  The only that really bothers me is Phase Lance.  600 range and no hard flux is terrible, burst or no burst.  For a hybrid/universal, Heavy Blaster is a possible contender, maybe Ion Beam.

Small energy weapons that are not PD or AM Blaster are generally underwhelming.  Not useless, just... not good.

Small and medium energy weapons could use more variety.

If Conquest had large energy mount, I would mix Tachyon Lance with ballistics.  Shields cannot completely block that combo.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 03, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
The auto pulse laser has both higher burst damage and higher sustained damage than the thermal pulse cannon (1500(300) for auto pulse vs 1250(250) for TPC). It also is one of the only energy weapons to have a positive damage:flux ratio which is a significant factor. Efficiency is a major concern for all weapons and one of the biggest drawbacks of energy weapons is that they all generally have sub 1:1 damage/flux ratios when competing against ballistics that general have a 2:1 ratios when used against the correct target. The main knock is that it has only 700 range which really sucks on capital ships where the average is 900 for ballistics.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Limitless on September 03, 2019, 06:37:13 PM
In early Starfarer/Starsector (before 0.6.5a), energy had unlimited ammo, but ballistics had limited ammo just like missiles.  Energy weapons' main advantage was unlimited ammo.  Around 0.6.5a, ballistics got clips like TPCs/autopulse, then got unlimited ammo, destroying energy weapons main advantage over ballistics.

I didn't know that.

Quote
Medium energy weapons are underwhelming.  Heavy Blaster is good, if too inefficient.  The only that really bothers me is Phase Lance.  600 range and no hard flux is terrible, burst or no burst.  For a hybrid/universal, Heavy Blaster is a possible contender, maybe Ion Beam.

Small energy weapons that are not PD or AM Blaster are generally underwhelming.  Not useless, just... not good.

Small and medium energy weapons could use more variety.

Almost exactly my point. Ballistic weapons have so many options compared to energy. I still think the large weapons could use a range boost.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 03, 2019, 07:06:31 PM
For medium weapon, I like to see a long-range medium beam that can hit harder than Tactical Laser.  So far, if I simply want a long-range beam in the medium slot to hurt ships while shields are down, there is nothing better than Tactical Laser.  Graviton beam costs more OP to do more damage against shields.  Not what I want on something like Eagle or Gauss Conquest.

Also, Heavy Burst Laser is highly inefficient just to have mostly more charges and range.  Often, I use small burst PD in a medium energy mount because it is more efficient and cheaper.

Energy does not need that many options, since they are generally inferior to ballistics, but there needs to be enough.  There is no good general purpose small energy, and all there is for medium energy is assault weapons (from low-end mining blaster, to mid-grade pulse laser, to high-end heavy blaster) and ion weapons.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 07:46:26 PM
There is a medium range beam that hits harder than a tac laser. The Ion Beam(200 ion damage vs hull) and Graviton Beam(200 vs shields) both do. Though in different situations. I think that is OK.

There are about no energy weapons that i don't use a lot of. Besides small energy weapons(i don't use a lot of IR pulse). Pulse lasers, phase lances. Heavy Blasters. I use them all and they're all quite good. There are no large energy weapons i don't make use of besides the paladin defense. Auto Pulse. HIL. Plasma Cannon. Tachyon Lance? They're all amazing.

Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 03, 2019, 08:00:08 PM
I think most of the existing energy weapons are well balanced but there are just some really major use cases where there is no good weapon. The biggest for me is low damage, efficient, hard flux medium energy for ships like the wolf and medusa that don't have the dissipation to support the existing hard flux medium energy weapons. I would not mind a higher dps medium beam as well. I think those two weapons would go a long way towards rounding out the energy weapons selection. I think large energy weapons are in a good place right now with the exception of the paladin.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SonnaBanana on September 03, 2019, 08:14:52 PM
Damage boost from flux is will be in the next release
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: goduranus on September 03, 2019, 10:02:49 PM
Solar shield will apply energy reduction to shields too, making energy weapons even weaker.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 03, 2019, 10:14:44 PM
Solar shield will apply energy reduction to shields too, making energy weapons even weaker.

Yeah, that's death of high tech right there. Solar shield is way too cheap for something so powerful. At least I'm sure I won't even entertain anything that relies on energy weapons to get through shield in next version. It makes use of HB against armor dubious too.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 03, 2019, 11:24:14 PM
Ayy this is my kind of thread. I'm all for variety and it's super clear energy weapons are lacking there. So many ships basically require certain weapons for them to be able to justify their DP cost (Heavy blaster for Shrike and Aurora and Plasma cannon for Apogee and Odyssey). Where our fellows the low tech and midline can just make do with whatever you have in cargo and still be decent ships in a fleet. Smalls and mediums are truly underwhelming and need more options, while I'm satisfied with large ones (except the flux of the Paladin). Although it would be nice to see another hard flux weapon that has decent range, I mean out of 5 larges, 3 of them are beams. Maybe then we could have another build for Paragon worth its crazy 60 DP cost along with 4 Tach lances.

I remember when energy weapons also had the advantage of extra damage when at higher flux. Then that got removed and energy weapons got rebalanced (no idea what the numbers were and if any weapons were unchanged). Now there will be a skill that will do exactly that but I don't want to rely on a skill just to make them ''viable''. They should perform good regardless. So yeah I'm all for more generalist options (getting tired of strike weapons) and some rebalancing of current ones.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 03, 2019, 11:48:49 PM
The biggest for me is low damage, efficient, hard flux medium energy for ships like the wolf and medusa that don't have the dissipation to support the existing hard flux medium energy weapons

Pulse laser. Medusa can almost fire two with its shields down and 1 comfortably with them up.

You might say “but it cant fire all of them” and well... yea but no one can fire their full flux compliment unless its all PD weapons or theyre SO.

All that matters is armor pen and efficiency. And pulse lasers are pretty good on both. Alternatively you can always fit IR pulse if you just have to have more slots filled
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: sotanaht on September 04, 2019, 01:45:28 AM
I hold that the Autopulse is in fact the best (considering all categories) energy weapon available, and except for range, it outperforms the majority of ballistic weapons.  Because of the stocking mechanic, the time it takes to close with your target isn't an issue.  The Autopulse is charging up during that time window, so all the DPS it would be doing while closing range it does immediately upon reaching optimal firing range.  The Autopulse is significantly more flux efficient than most other weapons, with a flux per damage of only .83.  In a shield trade, flux efficiency is the number one most important stat, not DPS.  Even Kenetic weapons which do double damage vs shields tend to come out similar or worse in flux efficiency.  Consider the Gauss Cannon, which does 700 dps vs shield at the cost of 600 flux per second, netting an efficiency of only .86, which is still worse than the autopulse.  That's on top of doing incredibly low DPS vs armor.

TPC isn't really a fair comparison, given that it's a pre-set mount.  TPC is slightly more efficient with better range, but worse DPS.  It's a good weapon, definitely one of the best, but since you can't equip it on anything it doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 05:54:10 AM
There is a medium range beam that hits harder than a tac laser. The Ion Beam(200 ion damage vs hull) and Graviton Beam(200 vs shields) both do. Though in different situations. I think that is OK.
No they do not.  Graviton beam is kinetic.  Against armor, it does less than Tactical Laser.  Not sure about hull with minimum armor around.  Graviton Beams main use to try to overwhelm dissipation if you can stack enough, not to damage armor and hull.  If I cannot stack enough beams, then Graviton is useless.  (For midline ships, I already have ballistics for anti-shield, and I want beams against non-shield defenses.)  For Ion Beam, it does 50 damage.  (The 200 is the ion damage.)  Ion Beam is good if player wants an unblockable beam to EMP ships, but not if he wants raw damage after shields go down.  Also, Ion Beam is a flux hog, and it is hard to stack more than one without getting flux problems.  For long-range finisher beam with raw damage against armor and hull, there is no better option than Tactical Laser, and that hurts.  For short range, there is phase lance or burst PD, but the range of those is too short if I want the likes of Tactical Laser (or HIL for heavy mounts).  Phase Beam attempted this role in early releases, before it was redesigned into the modern Phase Lance.  (Back then, Phase Beam was continuous instead of burst, had 700 range, did some EMP, costs 12 DP.  Not very flux efficient.  It was underwhelming.)

All that matters is armor pen and efficiency. And pulse lasers are pretty good on both. Alternatively you can always fit IR pulse if you just have to have more slots filled
Not always.  I tried Aurora with seven IR Pulse Lasers (anti-shield) and one Heavy Blaster (anti-armor).  While effective, it was not as good as simply two Heavy Blasters in the turrets and all hardpoints empty.  Even two pulse lasers in turrets and heavy blaster in hardpoint was better, though not as good as two heavy blasters in the turrets.

Sometimes (not always) DPS is more useful than efficiency if the enemy has less time to pound on your shields before they max on flux.

I remember when energy weapons also had the advantage of extra damage when at higher flux. Then that got removed and energy weapons got rebalanced (no idea what the numbers were and if any weapons were unchanged). Now there will be a skill that will do exactly that but I don't want to rely on a skill just to make them ''viable''. They should perform good regardless. So yeah I'm all for more generalist options (getting tired of strike weapons) and some rebalancing of current ones.
AM Blaster went from 1200 to 1400 damage per shot.  Mining Blaster likewise went from 600 to 700.  (Mining Blaster was a loser, it used to be stronger than Pulse Laser.)

(IR) Pulse Lasers gained about +33% damage.

Heavy Blaster gained +25% damage.

Autopulse was unchanged at first, but buffed later (Heavy Blaster outperformed it after a few seconds)

Plasma Cannon was unchanged at first (Heavy Blaster was nearly as powerful for 18 DP less).  Then it got passthrough and damage buffs, but flux use was raised to keep efficiency ratio, which was worse than Heavy Blaster.  This was okay with overpowered skills (huge flux stats), but by 0.8, the weakened skills made it so that it was almost unusable by player, and totally for AI.

Most beam range was normalized to 1000, except PD beams and maybe Phase Lance/Beam.  (Tactical Laser and Graviton Beam gained range, HIL lost range.  Ion Beam did not exist at the time.)  PD Beams aside from burst PD gained significant range.  At first, LR PD Laser had about 100 flux, which was too much, then lowered to 30.  Non-PD beams gain passthrough against missiles.  All beam weapons except maybe Tachyon Lance had their OP cost lowered by at least one.  Sometime later, Tachyon Lance cost was lowered from 32 to 25 DP.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 06:07:17 AM
Graviton Beams main use to try to overwhelm dissipation if you can stack enough, not to damage armor and hull.  If I cannot stack enough beams, then Graviton is useless.

Graviton has 2 uses:
- trying to overwhelm with soft flux
- limiting enemy flux that goes to weapon during brawl (both sides within each other's range). That's the typical use on mid-range Eagle/Falcon.

Graviton does nothing only if you out-range the enemy with hard flux weapons while being unable to overwhelm them with soft flux (they already waste dissipation by keeping shield up without firing). Well, except acting as insurance in case enemy manages to close the distance.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 06:12:41 AM
Graviton also does nothing if I win the flux war against them with ballistics alone (like with Gauss Conquest or three needler Eagle), but unable to finish them off due to lack of anti-armor.  I have medium mounts, and it feels lame that only Tactical Laser fits the bill.

P.S.  I often put Gravitons on Eagle mainly for anti-frigate and anti-Enforcer, which is enough to overwhelm their dissipation.  Occasionally, I have considered put Gravitons on Eagle for anti-missile, due to Graviton Beam's quirk for redirecting missiles, and mount placement on Eagle is good for that.  For such loadouts, I have Heavy Mortar/Mauler at one of the hardpoints.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 06:19:00 AM
Graviton also does nothing if I win the flux war against them with ballistics alone (like with Gauss Conquest or three needler Eagle), but unable to finish them off due to lack of anti-armor.  I have medium mounts, and it feels lame that only Tactical Laser fits the bill.

Yeah, AI rightly laughs in armor-tanking at such builds. Though not so much when Gauss is involved - it does enough damage per shot to get even through Onslaught's armor reasonably fast.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SafariJohn on September 04, 2019, 07:04:29 AM
Maybe then we could have another build for Paragon worth its crazy 60 DP cost along with 4 Tach lances.

That's funny, the 4 Tach Lance Paragon got it's ass kicked in round 1 of the tournament a week ago. And it had 3 carriers supporting it vs. the single Wolf supporting the other Paragon.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 04, 2019, 07:07:42 AM
Maybe then we could have another build for Paragon worth its crazy 60 DP cost along with 4 Tach lances.

That's funny, the 4 Tach Lance Paragon got it's ass kicked in round 1 of the tournament a week ago. And it had 3 carriers supporting it vs. the single Wolf supporting the other Paragon.

Ah yes I remember that, its build wasn't really the best so it doesn't actually mean much. Also AI struggles with 4 Tach lances due to flux issues.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 07:26:24 AM
Four lances are great in player hands against weaker ships.  Under AI control, it does not use four lances very well.  I tried AI Paragon with four lances against an Ordos, and it died about as fast as other battleships (like Onslaught).  Four lance Paragon is effectively a player-only loadout against serious opposition.

For brawling tough targets like Remnants and battlestations, I probably want something better against shields and more efficient.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 04, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
Autopulses are really excellent on the Paragon because it recharges while in fortress shield mode. The effective DPS stays close to its theoretical maximum, while for continuous firing weapons they lose out anytime the system is activated (or vents, or is out of range). The 4 Autopulse Paragon we saw later though had a lack of anti-armor, and turetted autopulse wastes a lot of shots - the earlier winner Paragon is a pretty good build, I like 2 tachs, 2 autopulse in hardpoints.

Regarding variations of the default eagle (3 Heavy Mortar, 3 Graviton): its not a terrible ship for AI hands, and I was pleasantly surprised by it when I did a default variant runthrough of forlorn hope. There aren't that many ships that can fire back effectively while under 600*shields additional flux, and the mortars are good enough HE to keep shields up. And its OP/flux cheap. I have my own favorite eagle build, but I've been thinking of giving this one a try more, or trying to find tweaks. The main issue is that kinetics + 1 ion beam is really, really good for lockdowns.

HILs are devastating weapons if they get through the shield. Compared to a Hephestus: the HIL has roughly the same DPS (500 vs 480), the same efficiency, and slightly more than double the armor penetration (500 vs 240). This is at the cost of soft flux instead of hard. As a specialist anti-armor/anti-hull weapon, very little can match it (tach lance does pretty god but is lower dps), and its a commonly found weapon. But its a specialist weapon: don't use it unless you can generate the situation where its amazing.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 09:00:39 AM
Regarding variations of the default eagle (3 Heavy Mortar, 3 Graviton): its not a terrible ship for AI hands, and I was pleasantly surprised by it when I did a default variant runthrough of forlorn hope. There aren't that many ships that can fire back effectively while under 600*shields additional flux, and the mortars are good enough HE to keep shields up. And its OP/flux cheap. I have my own favorite eagle build, but I've been thinking of giving this one a try more, or trying to find tweaks. The main issue is that kinetics + 1 ion beam is really, really good for lockdowns.

Sim Eagle loses to better variants on autopilot without inflict more than token damage. Clearly it's a weak variant.

HILs are devastating weapons if they get through the shield. Compared to a Hephestus: the HIL has roughly the same DPS (500 vs 480), the same efficiency, and slightly more than double the armor penetration (500 vs 240). This is at the cost of soft flux instead of hard. As a specialist anti-armor/anti-hull weapon, very little can match it (tach lance does pretty god but is lower dps), and its a commonly found weapon. But its a specialist weapon: don't use it unless you can generate the situation where its amazing.

Well, If I could combine HIL with good kinetic ballistics, I'd do. But there are no such ships. All ships with large energy need to utilize it help their otherwise anemic anti-shield capacity, which makes TL always a better choice.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 09:09:31 AM
Well, If I could combine HIL with good kinetic ballistics, I'd do. But there are no such ships. All ships with large energy need to utilize it help their otherwise anemic anti-shield capacity, which makes TL always a better choice.
Odyssey stuffed with lots of kinetic missiles (Sabots, Squalls, and Expanded Missile Racks) can do this.  That said, AI has trouble keeping HIL on target long enough (only the player can do so reliably), so Tachyon Lance is probably better anyway.

Or, if the enemy is weak enough, Odyssey can mount loads of IR Pulse Lasers, park next to sub-capital targets, and after the IR Pulse Lasers cap their flux, let the HILs rip.  It was an effective pirate hunter loadout during 0.9a.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 04, 2019, 09:25:11 AM
Sometimes it can be hard to separate the weapon from the ship hulls that can mount them when discussing game balance.

I wrote somewhere else that weapon ranges of similar types should be more normalised closer together. This is due to the range extending hullmods, which makes the range differences grow substantially. The difference between an IR Pulse Laser and Light Mortar might be 100. By the time large weapons are reached, it is a difference of 200 for the "normal" Ballistic and Energy weapons, but with Integrated Targeting Unit on capitals, it is a difference of 320.

Do the "elite" medium ballistic weapons need to be range 1000, outranging the "normal" large ballistic weapons? Does the Heavy Autocannon need to be +200 range over the Pulse Laser? Especially when the Medusa itself is only 10 speed faster than the Hammerhead? Why is the range difference of the "normal" large ballistic and energy weapon a difference of 200, when the previous medium and small mounts are of 100? It is relative range and speed that matters, not relative weapon range to the categories that matter.

To drag over an argument from another thread, what contributes to the obsoleteness of non-specialised frigates is the weapon range of ballistic weapons on capitals. For normal large ballistic weapons with range 900 and ITU on a capital ship, this becomes range of 1440. The Lasher or Wolf with range 600 will now have to endure 840 range being shot at, before it can enter the range to shoot back. The Lasher for instance has to endure 7 seconds of being shot at. This is not exact of course, since both can try to dodge sideways, or phase skim in the case of the Wolf, or even mount ITU. I guess Safety Overides can also help too, but at that point they really can't be called a normal frigate.

The normal Large Energy weapons do not give such a massive range problem, which is why they seem a lot weaker by comparison as well. Though it must be said that the long range beam energy weapons do a good job of zoning away frigates.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 04, 2019, 09:25:52 AM
Well, If I could combine HIL with good kinetic ballistics, I'd do. But there are no such ships. All ships with large energy need to utilize it help their otherwise anemic anti-shield capacity, which makes TL always a better choice.
On Sunders it's actually really nice coupled with a pair of Gravitons and Railguns/Needlers. Not the best example of the kinetic-HIL combo but it exists.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 09:31:36 AM
Well, If I could combine HIL with good kinetic ballistics, I'd do. But there are no such ships. All ships with large energy need to utilize it help their otherwise anemic anti-shield capacity, which makes TL always a better choice.
Odyssey stuffed with lots of kinetic missiles (Sabots, Squalls, and Expanded Missile Racks) can do this.  That said, AI has trouble keeping HIL on target long enough (only the player can do so reliably), so Tachyon Lance is probably better anyway.

Or, if the enemy is weak enough, Odyssey can mount loads of IR Pulse Lasers, park next to sub-capital targets, and after the IR Pulse Lasers cap their flux, let the HILs rip.  It was an effective pirate hunter loadout during 0.9a.

Yeah, I don't consider missile based ships for my fleet. Nice for duels or tournaments, but missiles not being reloaded in multi-round combat is too huge disadvantage. And even in single round combat it doesn't have ammo for half it's CR time.

HIL is somewhat useable on Odyssey, but flux balance & control doesn't work out nearly as well as for 2x Plasma build. HIL+Plasma+IR pulses is too much, HIL+ Autopulse + IR pulse doesn't utilize all dissipation (and part that goes to HIL is used extremely inefficiently when it's hitting shield). With 2x Plasma you have full manual controlled weapon that closely matches dissipation, easy to pause firing when dodging to dissipate some hard flux (though not enough time to vent).

Well, If I could combine HIL with good kinetic ballistics, I'd do. But there are no such ships. All ships with large energy need to utilize it help their otherwise anemic anti-shield capacity, which makes TL always a better choice.
On Sunders it's actually really nice coupled with a pair of Gravitons and Railguns/Needlers. Not the best example of the kinetic-HIL combo but it exists.

Right, but replace HIL with TL and you get even better build, with higher ceiling in what it can kill. For Sunder another reason to use TL is that it combines with HEF much better.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Limitless on September 04, 2019, 10:43:13 AM
Basically what I’m trying to say is the range of energy weapons is sub par, and the options of what you can even use is very limited
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 11:03:24 AM
Yeah, I don't consider missile based ships for my fleet. Nice for duels or tournaments, but missiles not being reloaded in multi-round combat is too huge disadvantage. And even in single round combat it doesn't have ammo for half it's CR time.

HIL is somewhat useable on Odyssey, but flux balance & control doesn't work out nearly as well as for 2x Plasma build. HIL+Plasma+IR pulses is too much, HIL+ Autopulse + IR pulse doesn't utilize all dissipation (and part that goes to HIL is used extremely inefficiently when it's hitting shield). With 2x Plasma you have full manual controlled weapon that closely matches dissipation, easy to pause firing when dodging to dissipate some hard flux (though not enough time to vent).
If I plan to use IR Pulse Lasers with HILs, I would use two HILs (or maybe one HIL and one lance), not one plus a hard flux heavy.  That is either too much flux use and/or unable to punish no shield ships long distance when hunting pirates.  Part of the point of IR Pulse Lasers is so Odyssey can use soft flux beams in the heavy mounts, instead of the other way around with small beam PD and autopulse/plasma.

Sabot Pods with Expanded Missile Racks last enough to kill some ships with other weapons.  Handy if an endurance loadout is not good enough.

Not fond of missile ships, but some ships need missiles to be good enough.  I would consider shotgun Odyssey one.  From what I see, two plasma cannon Odyssey under AI control burns to its death, and I prefer other capitals to two plasma Odyssey.  Two plasma Odyssey piloted by player is decent, but I do not see it performing miracles that other capitals cannot do.  If anything, Odyssey is more prone to fatal pilot error.  If I want to give Odyssey to AI, I probably need the shotgun loadout so that it kites and not burn into a mob like an Onslaught to die.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 11:31:02 AM
If I plan to use IR Pulse Lasers with HILs, I would use two HILs (or maybe one HIL and one lance), not one plus a hard flux heavy.  That is either too much flux use and/or unable to punish no shield ships long distance when hunting pirates.  Part of the point of IR Pulse Lasers is so Odyssey can use soft flux beams in the heavy mounts, instead of the other way around with small beam PD and autopulse/plasma.

Sabot Pods with Expanded Missile Racks last enough to kill some ships with other weapons.  Handy if an endurance loadout is not good enough.

Not fond of missile ships, but some ships need missiles to be good enough.  I would consider shotgun Odyssey one.  From what I see, two plasma cannon Odyssey under AI control burns to its death, and I prefer other capitals to two plasma Odyssey.  Two plasma Odyssey piloted by player is decent, but I do not see it performing miracles that other capitals cannot do.  If anything, Odyssey is more prone to fatal pilot error.  If I want to give Odyssey to AI, I probably need the shotgun loadout so that it kites and not burn into a mob like an Onslaught to die.

Just left side of IR pulses with nothing else uses only about half of available dissipation - that's too much untapped resources to be considered remotely efficient.

I'd say endurance layout is good enough, when player piloted. Very risky in no-skill combat, but probably easy enough to use with proper skills.
Spoiler
Note the moment where Hurricane gets intercepted by PD, because Conquest's shield direction was distracted by Pilums and didn't cover it's launch. Then I finished disabling Mjolnirs and secured offensive vent. Rest is mop-up. Of course, I don't exactly same sequence of events every time, but it's more or less typical of better runs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDpaEFrz1-U
[close]

AI Odyssey is out of question - it can only use SO-like loadout fully reliant on missiles. I'd rather get an AI Conquest or Paragon.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 11:49:32 AM
Part of the point of IR Pulse Laser in all mounts was all-purpose, PD (via IPDAI) or assault.  It was meant to be sort-of a broadside ship.  Right side is weaker when the only thing that backs up the IRs is Locusts.  It was designed to deal with pirate hordes of 0.9a, when IR Pulse Laser spam was effective against most things pirates threw at the player.  Now, with Atlas 2 spam, and expeditions I cannot always ignore, I do not use that loadout anymore.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 04, 2019, 12:07:29 PM
Sometimes it can be hard to separate the weapon from the ship hulls that can mount them when discussing game balance.
         You can either have slow ships with long range, fast ships with short range and variety, or you can have everything be samey. There might be some AI issues and you are free to voice them, but what you think of as issues, I see as good game design.
         As for the original topic, I agree that small energy weapons aren't very good, if you have to rely on them entirely. Medium guns are generally good, just not very varied. Heavy Blaster and Ion Pulser for superships, Phase Lance for armour breaking, Ion Beam for support frigates or for Falcons/Eagles/Conquests, Pulse Laser for everything else and Mining Blaster if you don't have Pulse Laser. This means that most often you need to get a specific weapon to get a loadout working and this is a good argument towards introducing one or two medium guns that can do something in between. Heavy Burst Laser is a special case, since it's a PD weapon in a slot that you very rarely can spare for PD and as an insult to the injury, it's just bad.
         Large energy weapons are, in my opinion, the best of the bunch, with one exception. Autopulse Laser is just good, without any drawbacks (it does more damage than Thermal Pulse Cannon per second, 1500 vs 1250, has higher recharge rate and, perhaps most importantly, is modular, whereas TPC is basically a ballistic gun in energy disguise), HIL is a beautiful weapon of mass destruction (too bad you rarely get to use it so, besides support Sunders), Tachyon Lance is powerful and punishing to take on. Plasma Cannon is alright now (it's more flux efficient than Mjolnir), but I still wish there was another weapon created to be a general purpose energy weapon and Plasma Cannon was allowed to remain a giant alpha strike cannon. It's also currently slightly overpriced at 30 OP. The exception is Paladin PD, since not only you are hard pressed to find a ship you can even put this one on (grand total of two capital ships, and it's a bad idea to do on both!), it's also straight bad, like HBL. It's DPS might seem okay, but it's all soft flux and it still uses too much flux for the damage it puts out. Giving more range to large energy guns is not a must, since of 5 ships that can use them, only Apogee suffers from it, and even then, not that much (though probably more so, after the shield efficiency nerf).
         As Megas mentioned in his first reply, energy weapons are inefficient to offset the high-tech ships' better flux stats and shorter ranged to offset their generally higher mobility. The reason why energy gun-using ships have to endure some time of being shot at from afar is because they not only can pick their fights and not be forced into them, they also are typically better 1 on 1, meaning they can pick fights they will win and run from ones they won't. Energy weapons being generally worse than ballistic weapons is how they are balanced in the game.

By the way - if I could take a HIL on a Conquest, I would. And the reason it doesn't have hybrid mounts is because the ship predates them.
Solar shield will apply energy reduction to shields too, making energy weapons even weaker.

Yeah, that's death of high tech right there. Solar shield is way too cheap for something so powerful. At least I'm sure I won't even entertain anything that relies on energy weapons to get through shield in next version. It makes use of HB against armor dubious too.
I think you are overreacting. There's no variant in the game that uses solar shielding, thus AI will not benefit from this change at all.
      
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 04, 2019, 12:21:18 PM
Basically what I’m trying to say is the range of energy weapons is sub par, and the options of what you can even use is very limited

Hey! Welcome to the forum and all that :)

I didn't really see it come up - though it might have - but a really important point here is that energy weapons generally go on specific ship types (high-tech in vanilla), while ballistics go on low-tech ships. High tech ships are faster and have better flux stats. So, this really has to be considered; just comparing weapons side-by-side doesn't paint the right picture.

For example, longer range - that's equal or close enough to ballistics - would make high-tech ships far too powerful. They are able to pick their engagements due to being faster; that's generally ok if they're out-ranged since they have to take some fire closing in and backing out, but if their range becomes comparable, it's a real problem.

There's some overlap, of course - a few high-tech ships have some universal or hybrid slots, and midline ships have both types of slots. But both those things are done with care an an eye towards preserving this balance. For example, it's ok for the Medusa to have two small universal slots, since the range of the ballistics you can put in them isn't too high. It would not be ok for it to have two medium universal slots; do that and it becomes an invincible kiter, or just straight-up too powerful due to the mix of more efficient weapons and better flux stats.

As far as improving variety, though, I could definitely see adding a few more options at some point!
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 12:21:25 PM
By the way - if I could take a HIL on a Conquest, I would. And the reason it doesn't have hybrid mounts is because the ship predates them.
Solar shield will apply energy reduction to shields too, making energy weapons even weaker.

Yeah, that's death of high tech right there. Solar shield is way too cheap for something so powerful. At least I'm sure I won't even entertain anything that relies on energy weapons to get through shield in next version. It makes use of HB against armor dubious too.
I think you are overreacting. There's no variant in the game that uses solar shielding, thus AI will not benefit from this change at all.

Weren't AI variants somewhat randomized? And Alex can change them in next release. Anyway, relying on enemies not bringing the obvious counter is kind of off.

Non-missile builds of Odyssey or Aurora already win their fights by slightest margins in weapon/shield/venting efficiency. Hard shields + Solar shielding would completely shut them down. Which is obvious combo to go for in capital vs capital combat: even Onslaught seriously relies on TPCs, Conquest is the only direct combat cap that can be built to not use energy weapons beside PD.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 04, 2019, 12:23:40 PM
Weren't AI variants somewhat randomized? And Alex can change them in next release. Anyway, relying on enemies not bringing the obvious counter is kind of off.

It's Diktat-only in vanilla, for flavor reasons. And I'm not 100% sure if autofit even mounts it on their ships.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 04, 2019, 12:28:22 PM
One thing I have forgotten is that high-tech ships are supposed to be more powerful per ships. Low-tech's higher range allows to circumvent that, by allowing ships to more easily support one another.
As far as improving variety, though, I could definitely see adding a few more options at some point!
Anything in particular on your mind, or do you just agree that currently you sort of need certain weapons for certain loadouts?
It's Diktat-only in vanilla, for flavor reasons. And I'm not 100% sure if autofit even mounts it on their ships.
Ha!
To elaborate, I didn't mean that solar shielding being player-exclusive is a justification for it being balanced, but that it won't impact your energy weapons, so you can continue using them as before.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 12:30:04 PM
Aurora only has 1000 more capacity than Dominator or Eagle, and 1000 less than Apogee.  It used to have 15000, then 12000, now 11000.

If I want to go ammoless with Aurora, I need to stick with only two Heavy Blasters and some burst PD, and throw everything into vents and hullmods that improve shields and flux (like Flux Distributor, Front Shields, Stabilized Shields, and Hardened Shields).  Even then, it is no better than a Aurora stuffed with Sabots and Expanded Missile Racks.

Paladin PD flux cost is too high.  The only way I can use them is Paragon with flux skills and the like.  The flux cost ruins novelty loadouts like all burst/paladin beams and two autopulses.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 04, 2019, 01:04:51 PM
Imo hard flux Aurora is completely unusable for AI.

Hard flux Aurora vs sim Eagle.
Steady without orders will just stall pointlessly.
If given Eliminate order (or I assume is Aggressive) it can win, but takes a lot of avoidable damage.

Decent Eagle build vs sim Aurora (which can considered ok sample of somewhat inefficient hard flux build)
Steady without order will stall, though not so pointless, since it's 22 vs 30 DP and it will inflict minor damage without taking any.
If given Eliminate order it will win taking minor damage, though there is some really funny dynamic going on:
- Initially Aurora will retreat taking minor damage per approach attempt
- At some point Eagle may drive up it's own soft flux (by acting aggressively and not taking time to vent)
- Aurora sees Eagle's high flux levels and tries to approach it more.
- Which is exactly what Eagle needs to kill it. Aurora just suicides to inflict token damage on Eagle. That's kind of behavior I never want to see in my fleet.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 04, 2019, 01:14:04 PM
Anything in particular on your mind, or do you just agree that currently you sort of need certain weapons for certain loadouts?

IR pulse could probably use a buff, but I'm not sure exactly what; likewise with Paladin PD - though that's just in a tough spot in general, as anything smaller than a station really doesn't have large slots to spare on PD, almost regardless of how good it is. A couple more potential options (a medium tac-laser like beam could be worth looking at).

The thing with energy weapons is ballistics have two damage types they commonly use - kinetic and HE - and then some frag - where energy is generally, well, energy damage - so its variety will naturally be a bit less as far as "meat and potatoes" weapons go. Hence, a lot of the energy weapons fill specific niche roles - HE damage, shield piercing, short-range burst damage, etc - so I think it's natural that some of these weapons will be a good fit/required for specific loadouts.

Ha!
To elaborate, I didn't mean that solar shielding being player-exclusive is a justification for it being balanced, but that it won't impact your energy weapons, so you can continue using them as before.

Right, yeah, I got that.

Paladin PD flux cost is too high.  The only way I can use them is Paragon with flux skills and the like.  The flux cost ruins novelty loadouts like all burst/paladin beams and two autopulses.

Hmmm.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 01:25:20 PM
Paladin PD might be damaging enough to be useful for assault like HIL.  Thing is whenever I get the bright idea of stacking them for big damage, I run into flux problems.  Once that hard flux hullmod comes next release, I may combine that with Paladin PD to see if it works well enough as an assault weapon.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Eji1700 on September 04, 2019, 02:58:15 PM
I'd just like to point out that I find the HIL pretty overlooked.

It's great in the early game when you're farming unshielded drones and pirate fleets, but it doesn't totally fall off late.

 It's not supposed to compete with the gravaton as it's purpose is to deal damage once shields are down, not flux them out.  Yes there are better weapons for bursting once you do, but as a cheap and simple option (that leaves more OP for other options) it can often be up constantly thus putting pressure onto the armor for any shield drop.  This can lead to a ship fluxxing faster than normal because it's not as likely to toggle shields (which the AI is close to godly at).
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 02:59:48 PM
I just tried a Paladin PD and other beam (heavy burst laser and LR PD) loadout with only two Heavy Needlers as its hard flux source.  (Not sure why I thought autopulse.)  I added Expanded Magazines for 30 shots per Paladin.  I piloted it against sim Onslaught.  Once shields are up, needlers are firing, and Onslaught is firing back, I start firing four Paladin PDs at Onslaught.  I maxed flux by the time charges went down to 10.

Next, I replaced the Paladins with autopulse.  I can barely empty autopulse before flux reached max.

Paladin PD takes longer to empty the clip.  Autopulse with Expanded Magazines runs dry a little over five seconds.  Paladin with Expanded Magazines takes over nine seconds, if capacity is high enough.  Paladin's flux use is not far behind from autopulse, but does less damage.

I checked the stats and noticed Paladin's efficiency is 1.5.  Only mining blaster has worse efficiency for energy weapons.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 04, 2019, 03:14:28 PM
Yeah, it sounds like it's probably overpriced flux-wise - might be a remnant from when LRPD had a high flux cost, too, but it didn't get reduced alongside it.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 04, 2019, 03:39:15 PM
No they do not.  Graviton beam is kinetic.  Against armor, it does less than Tactical Laser.

Yes. Both beams do more damage in different situations. Graviton provides 2.6 times the shield damage and Ion Beam causes arc explosions.
Well, If I could combine HIL with good kinetic ballistics, I'd do. But there are no such ships. All ships with large energy need to utilize it help their otherwise anemic anti-shield capacity, which makes TL always a better choice.

No but you can combine them with graviton beams on both the paragon and the sunder.

A Paragon i like is 6x graviton, 2 x HIL, 2x autopulse, advanced turret gyros.. The gravs fill all the medium and the HIL fills the side larges. Each side gets its own group all in one (to ensure they all fire at the same target). This provides hilarious armor and shield pen with really good tracking. 800 soft flux is enough to out flux roughly all frigates and destroyers. The two autopulse provide enough oomph to take down cruiser and capital shields and then the HIL can shred them.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 04, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
Yes. Both beams do more damage in different situations. Graviton provides 2.6 times the shield damage and Ion Beam causes arc explosions.
Which is totally irrelevant when I want a beam to damage armor and hull from long range.  If I want a beam to do simple damage to armor and hull from 1000 range, the best there is for medium mount is Tactical Laser.  I do not want Graviton Beam for anti-armor or anti-hull.  (Anti-shield is a drop in the bucket when the loadout already relies on hard-flux kinetics for that.)  I especially do not want Ion Beam if I only want damage.  (Arcing from Ion Beam is unreliable, and too flux inefficient in any case.)  Phase Beam range is too short.  That leaves Tactical Laser, which works, but not very well, but still better than anything else.

Those with heavy mounts can use High Intensity Laser or Tachyon Lance.  Those with only small mounts use Tactical Laser.  Those with medium mounts use... Tactical Laser.  (In early Starfarer, Phase Beam was an option, even if it was weaksauce.)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: MesoTroniK on September 04, 2019, 07:18:15 PM
A couple more potential options (a medium tac-laser like beam could be worth looking at).

While this might be a bit presumptuous of me? I just want to mention Alex that a medium Tactical Laser'ish weapon? Is a very volatile concept, and I know as I been down this road myself while modding. The problem is that they are completely obscene at killing fighters, and frigates! The combination of enough raw damage output to pressure shields decently while also having much more armor penetration than a Tactical Laser? Basically becomes a NO FRIGATES OR FIGHTERS ALLOWED ZONE heh. To the point where not only is it overly effective when used by the player, it also becomes downright unfun to fight *against*.

The way I see it there is a few ways to tackle this problem:
- A fair bit less damage than say 2x a Tactical Laser
- Less range than a Tactical Laser
- Making it fire in bursts (which doesn't fit here really)
- Or more creative solutions

The "creative solution" is what I did.
https://youtu.be/-wSALIGzLPQ
Giving the beam a subtle and slow sweeping attack pattern, doesn't change performance against shields at all (though can against shielded fighters at max range), but reduces armor penetration somewhat and can cause downright misses for some of the duration against frigates and especially fighters at long range. Giving a beam gun-like traits like that example makes it more interesting and balanced :)

Earlier versions of the Heavy Mining Laser before it swept would mince through frigates and fighters extremely quickly, and so it was satisfying to create the final iteration that isn't bull ***.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 05, 2019, 05:27:36 AM
Old Phase Beam was double Tactical Laser, plus EMP and high OP cost (do not remember efficiency).  Also 700 range, when Graviton Beam was 800.  It was weak.  Might have been better if OP cost, range, and maybe efficiency were better.  Old High Intensity Laser with 250 energy was also awful for heavy energy, despite 1200 range, could not pressure shields (enough for its size), could not burn through armor fast enough.

We have a beam with less range than Tactical Laser - Phase Lance.  (600 for no hard flux is too short for anything that is not Harbinger.)

Bursts is not a bad idea.  Been trying to turn burst PD and heavy burst laser into assault weapons, but the range is too short, and heavy burst laser is too flux inefficient.  Heavy burst laser is like an alternative phase lance.

Sweeping would kill it as a long-range weapon, unless it was very strong, stronger than Phase Lance, to begin with.

Quote
Basically becomes a NO FRIGATES OR FIGHTERS ALLOWED ZONE heh.
That is not a problem, especially against fighters.  As for frigates, if it has shields, it would probably block it better than Graviton (if it is like old Phase Beam), so that is not a problem, except for enemy Hounds which we want dead.  Such a medium beam should be between Tactical Laser and High Intensity Laser.

P.S.  That sweeping beam video.  Those sweepers were awful, missing the Talons and barely scratching them when the beams hit.  The small PD Lasers in the back were more effective against those Talons!  I probably would not want to mount those sweepers, instead of Tactical Lasers, on my Eagle.

Also, sweeping would kill the point of non-shield damage if target is heavily armored (and the beam is not as powerful as HIL).  Medium already has Ion Beam if player does not care too much about breaking armor and hull after shields are down.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: FooF on September 05, 2019, 06:47:11 AM
To chime in:

I've never had an issue with the range or type of damage Energy has because I understood that Energy and the High Tech doctrine are basically married together.

That being said, my biggest issue with Energy has always been the lack of hard flux in Small Energy Mounts and the proliferation of Small Energy Mounts (some ships only have them). There just aren't good options to get through shields. I've suggested a few things in the past but I guess I'm in the minority as seeing this as the primary problem.

Re: "Medium Tac Laser" idea

I'm trying to find a niche for the Graviton if such a thing exists. Assuming a Medium Tac Laser would be more powerful than the Small Mount version (~125-135 DPS?), my choice would be between 125-ish DPS of Energy or 100 of Kinetic. There would likely be a few other differences (namely OP cost, flux cost, and possibly range) but the Medium Tac Laser is going to be generally better in all circumstances but one. If anything, the Graviton would need to be buffed to perhaps 150 DPS Kinetic or have a portion of its damage (25%?) result in Hard Flux generation. Or it could also drop to 8 OP.

I think the way to balance a Medium Tac Laser is to basically relegate it to an anti-warship weapon via slow turn rate. It won't be able to track fighters with any degree of success and will need slower targets (even fast Frigates might be able to get around it) for it to make a dent. Fighters may wander into the beam path to their own peril but the weapon itself won't be anti-fighter.

My initial thoughts on stats. Relative to a Tac Laser, it would be about 20% more flux efficient but the damage would be about 20% less per OP. You could make it flashier but I think a very efficient weapon is what would separate it from its other beam brethren.

Medium Tac Laser:
OP: 9
Range: 1000
DPS: 135
Flux/sec: 110
Accuracy: Perfect
Turn Rate: Slow

Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 05, 2019, 07:04:28 AM
None of the small or medium energy weapons are good at breaking shields.  (Heavy Blaster can if ship has enough dissipation, like Paragon or maybe Aurora specifically built for it.)  The one ship really hurt by this is Wolf.  It does not have the flux stats to use hard-flux medium weapons, and it does not have the OP to grab two Sabot racks and Expanded Missile Racks to spam enough Sabots like Shrike and bigger ships can do.

Graviton has a niche, shield pressure.  Not many ships can mount enough for that purpose on their own, but Eagle is one of the few, and three Gravitons do bad things to small ships.  Graviton already does 100 kinetic damage, which is okay if you want beams on shields.  What Graviton Beam is not, is an upgraded Tactical Laser against non-shield defenses.  If there was no minimum armor, then Graviton could have been handy for anti-hull.

Quote
Medium Tac Laser:
OP: 9
Range: 1000
DPS: 135
Flux/sec: 110
Accuracy: Perfect
Turn Rate: Slow
Not bad, except for the slow turn rate.  It should be at least Medium.  Slow turn hurts on mobile ships.  Slow might be okay on powerful beams like High Intensity Laser (but still annoying), but for something that is not even a double tac laser, it would be too slow.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 05, 2019, 01:14:36 PM
A problem with the calls to buff the long range beam weapons is that there can be a critical mass problem, much like missiles and fighters do, but against fighters and frigates.

Anyways, the talk about the Paladin reminds of the time I experimented am SO Sunder with Paladin. I can't remember why I thought it was good idea that the time. Something about instant hit burst damage.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 05, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
While this might be a bit presumptuous of me? I just want to mention Alex that a medium Tactical Laser'ish weapon? Is a very volatile concept, and I know as I been down this road myself while modding. The problem is that they are completely obscene at killing fighters, and frigates! The combination of enough raw damage output to pressure shields decently while also having much more armor penetration than a Tactical Laser? Basically becomes a NO FRIGATES OR FIGHTERS ALLOWED ZONE heh. To the point where not only is it overly effective when used by the player, it also becomes downright unfun to fight *against*.

Yeah, this is a large part of why the HIL ended up with HE damage! Sort of an opposite approach - doubling down on anti-armor, but making even weaker shields counter it well.

The "sweeping" is quite an elegant solution.

The other thing is, well, the Tactical Laser is already there as a possible beam option for medium slots. For ballistics (light AC -> heavy AC, say) at least the range is substantially different, and the heavy version is significantly burstier; generally speaking I don't love adding "exactly the same but bigger" weapons.


That being said, my biggest issue with Energy has always been the lack of hard flux in Small Energy Mounts and the proliferation of Small Energy Mounts (some ships only have them). There just aren't good options to get through shields. I've suggested a few things in the past but I guess I'm in the minority as seeing this as the primary problem.

Improving the IR pulse would hopefully do the job there, I think? It would never be as good as something like an LMG, of course...

(Re: medium tac - right, yeah, at least something would need to be substantially different.)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: FooF on September 05, 2019, 01:47:45 PM
That being said, my biggest issue with Energy has always been the lack of hard flux in Small Energy Mounts and the proliferation of Small Energy Mounts (some ships only have them). There just aren't good options to get through shields. I've suggested a few things in the past but I guess I'm in the minority as seeing this as the primary problem.

Improving the IR pulse would hopefully do the job there, I think? It would never be as good as something like an LMG, of course...

(Re: medium tac - right, yeah, at least something would need to be substantially different.)

I actually think the IR Pulse is in a pretty good place it's just there is no alternative to it if you want do deal hard flux. It's a really good jack-of-all-trades weapon but even among generalists, we could use a small energy weapon with a.) more range (but less damage) b.) more damage (but less range/poor accuracy) or c.) something "special" that breaks normal Energy conventions but has a trade-off (high OP, poor flux efficiency outside its given role, etc.). I had a bunch of ideas (wow, it's been two years...!) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12540.0) on this very topic.

I guess where I'm coming from is that no matter how well a weapon fills a role (IR Pulse is a good weapon!), it gets boring being relegated to it every. single. time. I don't think there should be a bunch of "not better but different" weapons in the game but Small Energy is in some desperate need of variety when it comes to straight-forward weapons that do damage.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 05, 2019, 01:54:09 PM
I actually think the IR Pulse is in a pretty good place it's just there is no alternative to it if you want do deal hard flux. It's a really good jack-of-all-trades weapon but even among generalists, we could use a small energy weapon with a.) more range (but less damage) b.) more damage (but less range/poor accuracy) or c.) something "special" that breaks normal Energy conventions but has a trade-off (high OP, poor flux efficiency outside its given role, etc.). I had a bunch of ideas (wow, it's been two years...!) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12540.0) on this very topic.

I guess where I'm coming from is that no matter how well a weapon fills a role (IR Pulse is a good weapon!), it gets boring being relegated to it every. single. time. I don't think there should be a bunch of "not better but different" weapons in the game but Small Energy is in some desperate need of variety when it comes to straight-forward weapons that do damage.
Amen. One of the best things in Starsector is experimenting with weapons. I have probably spent over a few hundred hours just testing builds and then simulating to see how it performs. It's kinda annoying when you have a ship and then think ''welp guess I need to get x weapon or else this won't work''.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 05, 2019, 01:59:17 PM
(Re: medium tac - right, yeah, at least something would need to be substantially different.)
How about raising non-EMP damage of Ion Beam from 50 to 75?  That way, it is a Tactical Laser with lots of EMP as a rider (and high flux cost).

Either that or a long-range burst weapon like burst PD.  Sort of like LR PD vs. Tac Laser.  (Phase Lance is too short ranged.)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 05, 2019, 02:17:17 PM
There is the ion cannon for hard flux, but I suppose it doesn't do enough dps for people to care for a primary weapon unless there is a frigate ship hull with loads of small energy mounts that can use it. Maybe Scarab? or perhaps like FooF suggested, a small energy weapon that is a bit bursty like the ion pulsar would be useful for ships that do damage in bursts. But then Antimatter Blaster exists. As it is the Wolf has a medium energy mount so luckily it doesn't run into the short range problem so much as would be expected of a pure energy frigate. Maybe a Wolf variant with 2 small mounts instead of medium would be interesting to playtest.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 05, 2019, 02:43:03 PM
Ion Cannon is not damaging enough, and eats more OP than IR Pulse to afford stacking so many.

Wolf does not have the flux stats to support a hard-flux medium weapon without putting all OP into flux and gutting out other weapons.  It probably works best as beam support.  If it had good enough flux stats, then medium mount for anything aside from Graviton Beam would be handy.

Quote
I don't think there should be a bunch of "not better but different" weapons in the game but Small Energy is in some desperate need of variety when it comes to straight-forward weapons that do damage.
That is what I feel with medium weapons in beam variety.  If I do not need Graviton's shield pressure (because I cannot stack enough), cannot afford Ion Beam's high costs, and need more range than Heavy Burst Laser/Phase Lance, then all that is left is small beams (i.e., Tactical Laser).

Why pay 5 more OP for Graviton Beam (instead of Tactical Laser) if my ship cannot mount enough (or already has ballistics for anti-shield) to make shield pressure relevant?
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 05, 2019, 03:42:26 PM
If there is a weapon for every season then there is little differentiation between the sets.

I also think youre underselling the value of the graviton. Not only will they have significant pressure on smaller ships but they still effectively win you the flux war because they effectively reduce enemy dps. (That or they do soft flux in excess of the enemies dissipation and so it might as well be doing hard flux damage)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 05, 2019, 03:50:25 PM
I actually think the IR Pulse is in a pretty good place it's just there is no alternative to it if you want do deal hard flux. It's a really good jack-of-all-trades weapon but even among generalists, we could use a small energy weapon with a.) more range (but less damage) b.) more damage (but less range/poor accuracy) or c.) something "special" that breaks normal Energy conventions but has a trade-off (high OP, poor flux efficiency outside its given role, etc.). I had a bunch of ideas (wow, it's been two years...!) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12540.0) on this very topic.

I guess where I'm coming from is that no matter how well a weapon fills a role (IR Pulse is a good weapon!), it gets boring being relegated to it every. single. time. I don't think there should be a bunch of "not better but different" weapons in the game but Small Energy is in some desperate need of variety when it comes to straight-forward weapons that do damage.

I feel like the range of the IR pulse is about the extent of what hard flux damage can have in small energy slots before there are problems. It'd also be nice if it was useful on something like the Wolf, which I don't think it currently is... hmm. (Made a note to have another look through that thread, btw.)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 05, 2019, 04:04:51 PM
If there is a weapon for every season then there is little differentiation between the sets.
On the other hand, blatant gaps is not good either, much like that time with the only medium+ range medium HE ballistic option after Chaingun became a SO weapon was Heavy Mauler, when it was still rare and hard to acquire (no blueprints yet).  Then came Heavy Mortar.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Embolism on September 05, 2019, 04:37:17 PM
The main problem with small energy weapons IMO is 500 range on ion cannon and IR pulse. That's fine for fighters and frigates, but for destroyers and larger it generally doesn't make sense to get closer to bring them to bear versus staying at medium weapon range and avoiding unnecessary damage and weapon flux costs. Given that even light mortar got standardised to 600 range, I think ion cannon and IR pulse should be too. Fighter variants could have less range.

Medium energies have plenty of variety, the problem is most of the variety are subpar at what they do: namely, ion pulser, phase lance and mining blaster (and heavy burst).

Pulser's damage component is outclassed by heavy blaster and pulse laser (only thing it does better than both is shield burst) and its ion component is good but much less efficient (and shorter ranged) than ion cannon: most ships are better off using blaster/pulse and ion separately rather than trying to combine the two in an inefficient package.

Phase lance has reasonable burst, but curiously suffers from beam weakness (soft flux) without beam strength (range and flux efficiency). The only thing going for it is it benefits from advanced optics. If it had 700 instead of 600 range it would be a strong contender for other medium energies IMO.

Mining blaster has less range, DPS and flux efficiency than heavy blaster (which is already very inefficient) and doesn't cost that much less OP. If it's meant to be the cheap option then it should be cheaper, like 8 OP or something.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 05, 2019, 04:44:03 PM
Phase lance is quite excellent, even with 600 range. Its just an anti-fighter/anti-armor weapon and is quite poor against shields - not a great match for high tech ships. On Eagles and Falcons though, its a really good choice.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Embolism on September 05, 2019, 05:19:19 PM
Phase lance is quite excellent, even with 600 range. Its just an anti-fighter/anti-armor weapon and is quite poor against shields - not a great match for high tech ships. On Eagles and Falcons though, its a really good choice.

It's a good choice but I wouldn't call it really good. The issue is it's a 600 range weapon that's further exacerbated by how far back the Eagle and Falcon's energy mounts are compared to its ballistics, so you essentially have shorter range than a high tech ship with less mobility than a high tech ship. You can alleviate that with advanced optics but that's an extra OP tax.

When I'm thinking about 700 range phase lances, I'm actually thinking about how it would compensate for Eagle/Falcon's energy mount positioning.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 05, 2019, 05:44:51 PM
Quote
When I'm thinking about 700 range phase lances, I'm actually thinking about how it would compensate for Eagle/Falcon's energy mount positioning.
For that, I would like 800 range (or more) out-of-the-box (1000 with Advanced Optics).  700 would be handy for other ships, but for something like Falcon and Eagle, more!

Phase Lance's upfront flux cost is a real annoyance at times, especially for Falcon and Eagle.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 05, 2019, 05:45:59 PM
I would prefer an efficiency boost (preferably by reduced flux cost) for the phase lance rather than a range increase, but range is always nice.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 05, 2019, 10:13:11 PM
Phase lance is quite excellent, even with 600 range. Its just an anti-fighter/anti-armor weapon and is quite poor against shields - not a great match for high tech ships. On Eagles and Falcons though, its a really good choice.

It's a good choice but I wouldn't call it really good. The issue is it's a 600 range weapon that's further exacerbated by how far back the Eagle and Falcon's energy mounts are compared to its ballistics, so you essentially have shorter range than a high tech ship with less mobility than a high tech ship. You can alleviate that with advanced optics but that's an extra OP tax.

When I'm thinking about 700 range phase lances, I'm actually thinking about how it would compensate for Eagle/Falcon's energy mount positioning.

No. The shorter range on eagles/falcons is an advantage it lets them more easily target/weapon discriminate between enemies they want to shoot their kinetic guns at and those they want to shoot their phase lances at. The phase lances then get held for anti-fighter/frigate work and not wasted into shields.

If the phase lances were similar range as their main guns they would waste flux transferring their soft flux for less soft flux of the enemy (An enemy has to have shields OVER 1.2 in order for a flux trade into shields to be worthwhile for phase lances)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: MesoTroniK on September 06, 2019, 12:14:19 AM
Sweeping would kill it as a long-range weapon, unless it was very strong, stronger than Phase Lance, to begin with.

That is not a problem, especially against fighters.  As for frigates, if it has shields, it would probably block it better than Graviton (if it is like old Phase Beam), so that is not a problem, except for enemy Hounds which we want dead.  Such a medium beam should be between Tactical Laser and High Intensity Laser.

P.S.  That sweeping beam video.  Those sweepers were awful, missing the Talons and barely scratching them when the beams hit.  The small PD Lasers in the back were more effective against those Talons!  I probably would not want to mount those sweepers, instead of Tactical Lasers, on my Eagle.

Also, sweeping would kill the point of non-shield damage if target is heavily armored (and the beam is not as powerful as HIL).  Medium already has Ion Beam if player does not care too much about breaking armor and hull after shields are down.
That just isn't the case though, and lets have a talk for a bit Megas and I actually genuinely appreciate your criticism and theory-crafting. It prompted me to do more strenuous testing of the weapon when before it was mostly balanced by feel. As it turns out, my feel was right.

Also in that video where you claimed the PD Lasers were getting more kills? That just isn't correct. The Heavy Mining Lasers bagged 6 Talons, the PD Lasers 5 (1 of which got flamed out and collided), but on top of that? The Heavy Mining Lasers softened up most of those fighters on approach which they then flanked behind and got intercepted by the PD.


(https://i.imgur.com/ZKDWhlu.gif)
Here is the Heavy Mining Laser snapshotting Talons, sure looks like it is not "barely scratching" them.

(https://i.imgur.com/z4m5pyf.gif)
Here is the Heavy Mining Laser mowing down bombers and their bombs. This can be considered a bonus mechanic, the sweeping not only will hit multiple fighters in a wing at long range, but it will also intercept a fair bit of their ordnance.

(https://i.imgur.com/Cm43ile.png)
Here is the stat card of the weapon. It is balanced at the cost of 2 Tactical Lasers with slightly less raw damage output and flux cost but due to beam mechanics it actually has more armor penetration than 2 Tactical Lasers least when not at long range. It also is added to the Base Blueprints so is known at game start so once again is not considered a "high end" weapon, just a solid workhorse that gets the job done and also is sold in the Open Market and has a mining power in Nexerelin games.


Here is a series of artificial test videos, yes I know these are not real battles and they are also against "blank" variants which means no vents or capacitors, hullmods etc etc. But they should still offer a fair bit of insight and relative performance under easy to observe controlled circumstances!
https://youtu.be/vNuukj2bh9c
Here is a pair of Graviton Beams taking 68 seconds to deal hull damage to an Eagle.

https://youtu.be/fMsLx0D3aZU
Here is a pair of Graviton Beams taking 8 seconds to overload a Lasher, and 19 seconds to deal hull damage (counted after the overload happens).

https://youtu.be/5-GHY8h84do
Here is 4 Tactical Lasers taking 24 seconds to deal hull damage to an Eagle.

https://youtu.be/w35j15TN7rI
Here is 4 Tactical Lasers taking 12 seconds to overload a Lasher, and 6 seconds to deal hull damage (counted after the overload happens).

https://youtu.be/7y7z672ZNWE
Here is 2 Heavy Mining Lasers at 1400 range taking 26 seconds to deal hull damage to an Eagle.

https://youtu.be/C9Lf_yqwj_4
Here is 2 Heavy Mining Lasers at 1400 range taking 12 seconds to overload a Lasher, and 7 seconds to deal hull damage (counted after the overload happens).

https://youtu.be/N0z2uzbmxxs
Here is 2 Heavy Mining Lasers at 750 range taking 24 seconds to deal hull damage to an Eagle.

https://youtu.be/VneiFE4Vtz8
Here is 2 Heavy Mining Lasers at 750 range taking 12 seconds to overload a Lasher, and 5 seconds to deal hull damage (counted after the overload happens).

https://youtu.be/YYdNnwIAFts
Here is 2 Heavy Mining Lasers at 500 range taking 23 seconds to deal hull damage to an Eagle.

https://youtu.be/EwjnIBXvg1U
Here is 2 Heavy Mining Lasers at 500 range taking 12 seconds to overload a Lasher, and 4 seconds to deal hull damage (counted after the overload happens).


As you can see? They offer *very slightly* worse performance than paired Tactical Lasers against shields, and a bit worse against shielded fighters at long range as well as worse against small targets in general when far off. Against armor at long range they are *slightly* worse in performance than paired Tactical Lasers, but as you close the gap they equal them and then exceed them at armor penetration when up close. Combined with the bonus mechanics mentioned above of both combat and campaign layer mechanics? I believe this weapon is balanced reasonably well, and I hope you agree Megas and that Alex and other modders might find this wall of info useful :)


While this might be a bit presumptuous of me? I just want to mention Alex that a medium Tactical Laser'ish weapon? Is a very volatile concept, and I know as I been down this road myself while modding. The problem is that they are completely obscene at killing fighters, and frigates! The combination of enough raw damage output to pressure shields decently while also having much more armor penetration than a Tactical Laser? Basically becomes a NO FRIGATES OR FIGHTERS ALLOWED ZONE heh. To the point where not only is it overly effective when used by the player, it also becomes downright unfun to fight *against*.

Yeah, this is a large part of why the HIL ended up with HE damage! Sort of an opposite approach - doubling down on anti-armor, but making even weaker shields counter it well.

The "sweeping" is quite an elegant solution.

The other thing is, well, the Tactical Laser is already there as a possible beam option for medium slots. For ballistics (light AC -> heavy AC, say) at least the range is substantially different, and the heavy version is significantly burstier; generally speaking I don't love adding "exactly the same but bigger" weapons.


That being said, my biggest issue with Energy has always been the lack of hard flux in Small Energy Mounts and the proliferation of Small Energy Mounts (some ships only have them). There just aren't good options to get through shields. I've suggested a few things in the past but I guess I'm in the minority as seeing this as the primary problem.

Improving the IR pulse would hopefully do the job there, I think? It would never be as good as something like an LMG, of course...

(Re: medium tac - right, yeah, at least something would need to be substantially different.)
I actually think the IR Pulse is in a pretty good place it's just there is no alternative to it if you want do deal hard flux. It's a really good jack-of-all-trades weapon but even among generalists, we could use a small energy weapon with a.) more range (but less damage) b.) more damage (but less range/poor accuracy) or c.) something "special" that breaks normal Energy conventions but has a trade-off (high OP, poor flux efficiency outside its given role, etc.). I had a bunch of ideas (wow, it's been two years...!) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12540.0) on this very topic.

I guess where I'm coming from is that no matter how well a weapon fills a role (IR Pulse is a good weapon!), it gets boring being relegated to it every. single. time. I don't think there should be a bunch of "not better but different" weapons in the game but Small Energy is in some desperate need of variety when it comes to straight-forward weapons that do damage.

I feel like the range of the IR pulse is about the extent of what hard flux damage can have in small energy slots before there are problems. It'd also be nice if it was useful on something like the Wolf, which I don't think it currently is... hmm. (Made a note to have another look through that thread, btw.)
Thank you Alex! I am quite happy with the sweeping myself both mechanically and "tech lore" wise since it is a souped up Mining Laser so it sweeping makes sense... Or something. Maybe my rambles and footage up above will inspire you to do something a bit unusual for vanilla if you end up doing a "med Tac Laser" in vanilla later :)

Regarding the IR Pulse Laser buff in theory? Keep in mind this is pure theory-crafting I did not try this nor put too much thought into it... What might be interesting to do Alex is make it fire in double tap bursts, but not like the Heavy Mortar. Give it a 2 shot magazine that also reloads in paired shot clips not a trickle and it could fire 1 or both shots (or more) back to back, this way it can also be souped up with the Extended Magazines hullmod. Overall DPS the same, but would get a bit of burst potential but not really that much. Might also need to be made slightly more flux efficient if something like this happened. Anyways this would not only buff it some, but it would also make it more *fun*, having a burst fire small energy weapon in vanilla and not just another semi-auto one.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 06, 2019, 01:55:27 AM
2 PCs will do more damage than a HAG ot Mark 9, but at worse efficiency than either. 2 Pulse Lasers will do more damage than a HAC or a Heavy Mortar, with the same drawback. 2 IR Pulses will not outdamage a Railgun or a LAG and though they beat a dual autocannon, not by much. Most other energy weapons deal much more base damage than their size equivalent ballistcs, except for IR (APL doesn't, but it has burst).

As for medium tactical laser, just give phase lance more range. Medium taclaser won't be anti-shield, you have graviton for that. It won't be EMP, you have ion beam for that. It won't be a poke laser, we have small tactical laser for that. This leaves us anti-fighter and anti-armour beam, and burst. Sounds familiar? Well, there's an alternative of making it an expensive, high power anti-everything beam, but I'm not sure if it would be a good idea.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 06, 2019, 02:25:30 AM
@Alex and people saying we already have options

We have 4! frickin PD weapons just for small slots. Like, no other weapon mount (ballistic or energy) has that many. Yet only 1 weapon that's actually damaging and puts hard flux. AM blaster doesn't count since it's waaaaay too niche, and ships that have the ''small energy problem'' can't really put it because of OP and flux issues. I get that you don't want lazy options like Tac laser, then Heavy Tac laser and then Super Ultra Heavy Tac laser. But we don't have a medium poke option. For example a large weapon that's basically a bigger Heavy blaster wouldn't make sense since we already have Plasma cannon, which fits that role nicely. So while I agree that just having different sizes of 1 weapon is kinda lame, it can improve variety and get rid of ''samey builds''. Or just make a completely new thing, doesn't matter actually.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Amoebka on September 06, 2019, 02:42:17 AM
Yeah, there just doesn't seem to be a generally good medium energy weapon in the game. Phase lance is classified as such, but we all know it's a strike weapon. The issue is further amplified by the fact that a lot of high-tech small ships have medium energy mounts (wolf, tempest, brawler, shrike) without the flux capacity to properly use available options. AI is no good at using high-burst high-flux weapons, so having a medium tactical laser would just be a good alternative to simply putting pulse lasers on everything without thinking.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 06, 2019, 04:30:45 AM
Regarding the IR Pulse Laser buff in theory? Keep in mind this is pure theory-crafting I did not try this nor put too much thought into it... What might be interesting to do Alex is make it fire in double tap bursts, but not like the Heavy Mortar. Give it a 2 shot magazine that also reloads in paired shot clips not a trickle and it could fire 1 or both shots (or more) back to back, this way it can also be souped up with the Extended Magazines hullmod. Overall DPS the same, but would get a bit of burst potential but not really that much. Might also need to be made slightly more flux efficient if something like this happened. Anyways this would not only buff it some, but it would also make it more *fun*, having a burst fire small energy weapon in vanilla and not just another semi-auto one.
Two possible problems, if the burst means less sustained DPS.  1) Will it play nice with IPDAI hullmod?  2) Will the burst matter when damage is low enough that they need to be sustained for a while?

IR Pulse Laser plus IPDAI is passable PD, especially for Odyssey or Conquest.  I find IR Pulse Laser more useful for bigger ships since they get more range after ITU and can afford to bully weaker ships with them.  For something like Wolf, the range is too short, and it does not have the flux stats to support more than one or two.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 06, 2019, 04:34:47 AM
Yep, anything that harms IPDAI use case doesn't qualify as a buff.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 06, 2019, 05:11:27 AM
@ MesoTronik:
The sweeper appears better on the new videos.  A beam like that, minus the sweeping, is close to what I had in mind.  Four tactical lasers on Eagle is too many mounts taken, especially if I do not have burst PD.  8 DP is a bargain though, or maybe not since the sweeping makes it miss small targets at times.  Your videos show why I do not want Graviton beam in the medium mounts if I want a long-range armor/hull breaker.

No. The shorter range on eagles/falcons is an advantage it lets them more easily target/weapon discriminate between enemies they want to shoot their kinetic guns at and those they want to shoot their phase lances at. The phase lances then get held for anti-fighter/frigate work and not wasted into shields.

If the phase lances were similar range as their main guns they would waste flux transferring their soft flux for less soft flux of the enemy (An enemy has to have shields OVER 1.2 in order for a flux trade into shields to be worthwhile for phase lances)
I find the short range of Phase Lance very annoying on Falcon/Eagle (and other ships).  I need Advanced Optics to get enough range, but then it might make other 1000 range beams (like Ion Beam) too long.  For Falcon/Eagle, I try use Phase Lances (instead of Tactical Laser spam) as a finisher against big ships, but the range is too short without Advanced Optics.  Also, their flux use means I use less ballistics for anti-shield.  (Three Heavy Autocannons use too much flux, but two Heavy Needlers, or a combo of Arbalests/Railguns and Heavy Autocannon, is efficient enough to work with Phase Lances.)  If Pulse Laser's flux/sec were not so high, I would use those instead of Phase Lances if I was content with 600 range.

Yeah, there just doesn't seem to be a generally good medium energy weapon in the game. Phase lance is classified as such, but we all know it's a strike weapon. The issue is further amplified by the fact that a lot of high-tech small ships have medium energy mounts (wolf, tempest, brawler, shrike) without the flux capacity to properly use available options. AI is no good at using high-burst high-flux weapons, so having a medium tactical laser would just be a good alternative to simply putting pulse lasers on everything without thinking.
This!  Also, Phase Lance range is too short for anything aside from non-missile PD (which we also have Heavy Burst Laser) or hit-and-run strikes (from Hyperion, Harbinger, or SO ships).
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 10:35:48 AM
Yeah, there just doesn't seem to be a generally good medium energy weapon in the game. Phase lance is classified as such, but we all know it's a strike weapon. The issue is further amplified by the fact that a lot of high-tech small ships have medium energy mounts (wolf, tempest, brawler, shrike) without the flux capacity to properly use available options. AI is no good at using high-burst high-flux weapons, so having a medium tactical laser would just be a good alternative to simply putting pulse lasers on everything without thinking.

I agree with this a lot as well. The weapon that (I think) is supposed to be the generalist energy weapon is the pulse laser but it is also supposed to be the cheap and commonly available energy weapon meaning it can't be very good. It costs too much flux and has too little range for small ships to use it effectively. There should be another general use hard flux energy weapon for the medium slots IMO. Perhaps something with lower damage/shot and lower flux cost and dps but with better efficiency. It could be a burst weapon or something to make it more unique, or it could have a spool-up time. That would be a perfect weapon for something like the wolf or medusa who IMO are really lacking generally good load outs right now (they either have to go full beam boat or risky high flux loadout).

The way I see it, the pulse laser is closest to the arbalest (mediocre to bad but easy to obtain and gets the job done until you find something better), and the heavy blaster is closest to the heavy needler (rare, powerful, but also hard/expensive to fit into loadouts) but there is no heavy assault cannon for hard flux energy weapons. There should be a gun that generally works well in every loadout but doesn't do anything special or niche.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 06, 2019, 11:32:59 AM
I think Mining Blaster was supposed to be the cheap Open Market medium energy.  Unfortunately, it has terrible range (for its size) and efficiency, costs 10 OP to mount, and is a borderline strike weapon.  It is ill-suited for brawling.  If mining blaster will stay so inefficient (1.7 or so, that is extreme), then it needs its DP cost lowered to match the likes of Arbalest or Heavy Mortar.

Pulse Laser would probably be more comparable to Heavy Autocannon.

For generalist use, pulse laser is the baseline hard-flux option, and it is a bit too flux-hungry and inefficient to use against ships with efficient kinetics.  (I would not use it over ballistics for a hybrid mount.)  It is on the efficient side for hard-flux energy, just not efficient enough for those with bad flux stats like Wolf, or midline ships looking for efficient energy options to compliment ballistics.

Ion Cannon used to have 600 range, and it was useful despite weak damage.  Good on the middle small mount on Wolf at the time.  Now, 500 is too short for non-strike hard-flux weapons (unless ship was Scarab, but it too does not have much flux to spare).
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 12:40:33 PM
I think Mining Blaster was supposed to be the cheap Open Market medium energy.  Unfortunately, it has terrible range (for its size) and efficiency, costs 10 OP to mount, and is a borderline strike weapon.  It is ill-suited for brawling.  If mining blaster will stay so inefficient (1.7 or so, that is extreme), then it needs its DP cost lowered to match the likes of Arbalest or Heavy Mortar.

Pulse Laser would probably be more comparable to Heavy Autocannon.

For generalist use, pulse laser is the baseline hard-flux option, and it is a bit too flux-hungry and inefficient to use against ships with efficient kinetics.  (I would not use it over ballistics for a hybrid mount.)  It is on the efficient side for hard-flux energy, just not efficient enough for those with bad flux stats like Wolf, or midline ships looking for efficient energy options to compliment ballistics.

I don't agree that HAC is similar to the pulse laser. I would say every ship with a medium ballistic mount is happy use the HAC, but many ships with energy mounts struggle to use a pulse laser. The short range and high flux cost just cause the AI too many issues on many ships. Graviton is the only medium energy weapon that is useful generally (i.e. any ship can use it), but it has super low output so it's a waste to put it on ships where medium energy mounts are their primary firepower.

I think to some extent it is more of a ship balance issue actually. Some high tech ships are very strong in terms of flux stats and ship systems so the energy weapons have to be weak to keep them balanced, but then some weaker high tech and mid tech ships struggle to use those energy weapons because they are too inefficient or short ranged. The pulse laser feels like it wants to straddle those two types of ships but it has only mediocre output for the strong ships and too much flux cost for the weak ships. I would like a weapon with low flux cost for the weak ships and maybe a rare weapon with better output for the strong ships.

The mining laser is borderline useless IMO. 1.7 efficiency is just so painful. In order to get your enemy in a position where you can do hull damage, you have spend your capacity to win the flux war and you have no capacity left to use the mining blaster to crack armor which is the only thing it is remotely good at.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 06, 2019, 12:53:03 PM
The mining laser is borderline useless IMO. 1.7 efficiency is just so painful. In order to get your enemy in a position where you can do hull damage, you have spend your capacity to win the flux war and you have no capacity left to use the mining blaster to crack armor which is the only thing it is remotely good at.

Mining Blaster is dedicated shield bypass weapon for Hyperion, since even a bit more damage per shot trumps other considerations, but AM blaster's wind-up makes it too slow.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 12:55:31 PM
The mining laser is borderline useless IMO. 1.7 efficiency is just so painful. In order to get your enemy in a position where you can do hull damage, you have spend your capacity to win the flux war and you have no capacity left to use the mining blaster to crack armor which is the only thing it is remotely good at.

Mining Blaster is dedicated shield bypass weapon for Hyperion, since even a bit more damage per shot trumps other considerations, but AM blaster's wind-up makes it too slow.
At this point the only question is why is it called Mining Blaster... Name doesn't match actual niche.

Having a weapon that is literally only good on one ship is terrible design. Especially considering that the ship is super niche as well since it is exceedingly rare and costs as much as cruiser while likely not out cruisers levels of value unless the player pilots it and is also very good at piloting it. I disagree that this is a valid reason for it being the way it is.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 06, 2019, 01:35:28 PM
Having a weapon that is literally only good on one ship is terrible design. Especially considering that the ship is super niche as well since it is exceedingly rare and costs as much as cruiser while likely not out cruisers levels of value unless the player pilots it and is also very good at piloting it. I disagree that this is a valid reason for it being the way it is.

Yeah, that's more like happy (for Hyperion) coincidence.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: pairedeciseaux on September 06, 2019, 02:00:56 PM
Hmmm. Energy weapons conversations seem to always run in circles, like Conquest conversations. You guys are crazy. Hmmm, may I join the fun ?  ;D

Pulse Laser is the best medium size general purpose weapon in the game. Good mounted on many ships from Wolf to Paragon. Good against any ship size. Good against fighters.

Mining Blaster is a very good medium size bust weapon. In case you have forgotten just look at the raw damage it does. Good to overload high flux ship when shot on shield and good to crack armor. One single MB works well on Pirate Shrike, Medusa, Falcon and Eagle - together with support kinetic weapon(s) and good mobility. It works well on player piloted regular Shrike. Now ... sure, you don't wan't to have that kind of weapon on auto fire - but would you put your Antimatter Blaster or torpedo launcher on auto fire ? MB is kind of an alternative to the AMB.

Heavy Blaster often replaces Mining Blaster in my loadouts. It's also my favourite gun on player piloted Wolf. It's a good hybrid between a general purpose weapon and a burst weapon.

Last, IR Pulse Laser is a good light shield pressure weapon and good anti-fighter weapon. I won't claim it's the best general purpose small size gun, but it's a good one. I certainly wouldn't want to loose it's sustained fire capabilities (Re: Meso's suggestions). But sure, alternatives would be welcome (though there already are several in mods).
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 06, 2019, 03:33:00 PM
I don't agree that HAC is similar to the pulse laser. I would say every ship with a medium ballistic mount is happy use the HAC, but many ships with energy mounts struggle to use a pulse laser. The short range and high flux cost just cause the AI too many issues on many ships. Graviton is the only medium energy weapon that is useful generally (i.e. any ship can use it), but it has super low output so it's a waste to put it on ships where medium energy mounts are their primary firepower.
HAC is similar to Pulse Laser not by usefulness, but by design.  Pulse Laser costs 10 OP, and not found at Open Market.  Both appear to be the standard, unlike low-end Mining Blaster/Arbalest, or high-end Heavy Blaster/HVD/Heavy Needler.

I agree that Pulse Laser is not strong enough for those that can use it (Heavy Blaster is probably better), and too flux-hungry for the rest.

Heavy Autocannon is decent, but I do not use it very much for one among a variety of reasons: costs too much flux or OP (on smaller ships like Enforcer), less efficient than Railgun/Arbalest/Heavy Needler, range band does not match Heavy Mortar, too inaccurate, not as good as heavy needler.  Still HAC gets the job done.

Re: Mining Blaster
There is one other ship I do not mind Mining Blaster on:  Apogee during early game.  Autopulse is too weak against enemy orbital stations.  It takes too many hits for autopulse to crack armor.  (Sustained DPS is comparable to medium weapon.)  Mining Blaster will crack it faster.  Good for playership Apogee attempting to solo an incomplete pirate orbital station early in the game.  For early Apogee, I would sooner upgrade missiles to Locusts than mining blaster to anything less than plasma cannon (or maybe heavy blaster).

Still, Mining Blaster is too inefficient and costs too much OP for a junky low-end Open Market weapon.

Quote
Having a weapon that is literally only good on one ship is terrible design.
I have similar complaints with other weapons.  Most of all, dumb-fire large missiles (in part because Hammer Barrage is low-end and Open Market common).  The only good ship that can use them well is the Legion (XIV), which we cannot buy, build, or farm.  Gryphon is a bad ship, and the rest cannot use them effectively due to conflict design.  Next release, Radiant may be an option, but that is AI only.

Phase Lance is a runner-up.  Anything I might want it on, I prefer another weapon.  For example, AM Blasters instead of Phase Lances on Harbinger.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 06, 2019, 03:58:01 PM
Heavy Autocannon is decent, but I do not use it very much for one among a variety of reasons: costs too much flux, range band does not match Heavy Mortar, too inaccurate, not as good as heavy needler.  Still HAC gets the job done.

I think HAC is fine if you are choosing between HAC + 5 vents vs Heavy Needler, or need to spent these 5 OP on some critical hullmod. If you've already maxed vents, then Heavy Needler is generally better.
Thought I got quite accustomed to using HAC in 0.9 (since Needler had same 1.0 efficiency).

Phase Lance is a runner-up.  Anything I might want it on, I prefer another weapon.  For example, AM Blasters instead of Phase Lances on Harbinger.

I find 2x Phase Lance the most powerful weapon setup for a Tempest. Of course AI doesn't use it quite as well as a player, but seems to work ok with Aggressive officer too. Plus, Terminator drones in their current iteration are very fragile, staying away and using optics + PL is good way to keep them alive.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 06, 2019, 04:02:48 PM
I think HAC is fine if you are choosing between HAC + 5 vents vs Heavy Needler, or need to spent these 5 OP on some critical hullmod. If you've already maxed vents, then Heavy Needler is generally better.
Thought I got quite accustomed to using HAC in 0.9 (since Needler had same 1.0 efficiency).
Sure, if I need to give up too many vents, and the ship can deal with the flux load, then sure, HACs go on instead.  I have few alternative loadouts where I use Heavy Autocannon instead of Heavy Needler due to OP cost.

Five vents is probably not a big deal for one weapon on a capital, but twenty is if it is four weapons.

Heavy Needler in 0.9a was awful.  Heavy Autocannon was a near no-brainer in that release.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: FooF on September 06, 2019, 04:39:02 PM
The Pulse Laser is about as "middle-of-the-road" as you can possibly get in this game but I agree that it tends to hurt smaller ships because its flux profile is still pretty high. We need a medium Energy Weapon that runs about 200 flux/sec that can deal hard flux. Make it fire 1/sec and deal 175 damage for 200 flux/shot. It would hit harder and more efficiently than the Pulse but have lower DPS overall and be unable to hit fighters well. A ship that can more reliably handle the flux cost of the Pulse Laser will find that it is overall better but smaller ships with tighter flux budgets will be able to mount this one and not have the flux issues (and have a decent shot at getting through shields).


Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 06, 2019, 04:56:57 PM
If FooF's new low-end, low DPS weapon is to be relied on shields (especially for something like Wolf who cannot use ballistics), it needs to have no worse than 1.0 efficiency (and have at least 600 range).

Heavy Blaster can get away with worse efficiency (than Pulse Laser) because of higher DPS, which may cause the enemy to lose the flux war faster and prevent more damage from hitting your shields, plus break armor faster, which can compensate for inefficiency.  Less damage taken by shields by beating the enemy faster means less hard flux.

Pulse Laser is not only a bit expensive on flux, but its 1.1 efficiency is not great either, especially against other ships' 0.8 to 1.0 efficiency kinetics.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 05:42:50 PM
If FooF's new low-end, low DPS weapon is to be relied on shields (especially for something like Wolf who cannot use ballistics), it needs to have no worse than 1.0 efficiency (and have at least 600 range).

Heavy Blaster can get away with worse efficiency (than Pulse Laser) because of higher DPS, which may cause the enemy to lose the flux war faster and prevent more damage from hitting your shields, plus break armor faster, which can compensate for inefficiency.  Less damage taken by shields by beating the enemy faster means less hard flux.

Pulse Laser is not only a bit expensive on flux, but its 1.1 efficiency is not great either, especially against other ships' 0.8 to 1.0 efficiency kinetics.

Agreed, I think 600 range 200 dps 180 flux/sec 50 damage/shot or something along those lines. Bad against armor but somewhat efficient against shields, needs some follow up to kill. Maybe even 700 range and possibly a bit less dps if you wanted to make it more unique.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 06, 2019, 06:02:09 PM
(Just wanted to say that even though I'm not responding a whole lot, I'm very much keeping up with the thread.)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Limitless on September 06, 2019, 09:26:21 PM
Hmmm. Energy weapons conversations seem to always run in circles, like Conquest conversations. You guys are crazy. Hmmm, may I join the fun ?  ;D

When you're right you're right

Quote
... together with support kinetic weapon(s) and good mobility.

But high tech ships don't have supporting kinetic weapons. Apogee and Paragon don't have good mobility. The frigates and destroyers do have good mobility, but they're mostly locked to energy weapons. Midline is what benefits most here.

(Just wanted to say that even though I'm not responding a whole lot, I'm very much keeping up with the thread.)

Thank you <3
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 10:15:47 PM
Pulse Laser is the best medium size general purpose weapon in the game.
This is only true because it is the only medium size general purpose weapon in the game. I've already stated why I think it's mediocre.

Quote
Mining Blaster is a very good medium size bust weapon. In case you have forgotten just look at the raw damage it does. Good to overload high flux ship when shot on shield and good to crack armor. One single MB works well on Pirate Shrike, Medusa, Falcon and Eagle - together with support kinetic weapon(s) and good mobility. It works well on player piloted regular Shrike. Now ... sure, you don't wan't to have that kind of weapon on auto fire - but would you put your Antimatter Blaster or torpedo launcher on auto fire ? MB is kind of an alternative to the AMB.
Every other energy weapon that does something vaguely similar is better. Anti-matter blaster is better (even though you are downsizing the mount), phase lance is better, heavy blaster is better. It only does 700 damage for 1200 flux? Heavy blaster does 500 for 720 flux, anti-matter blaster does 1400 damage for 1500 flux, phase lance does 1000 damage for 1200 flux. There's literally no reason to use it if you have any other options.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 06, 2019, 10:20:01 PM
Heavy Blaster can get away with worse efficiency (than Pulse Laser) because of higher DPS, which may cause the enemy to lose the flux war faster and prevent more damage from hitting your shields, plus break armor faster, which can compensate for inefficiency.  Less damage taken by shields by beating the enemy faster means less hard flux.

That isn't how it works. If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency.  The inefficiency of the heavy blaster is made up by the fact that its minimum damage versus armor number occurs at 2883 armor. Which means that at 500 armor its 37.5% efficient while the pulse laser against 500 armor is 15.1% efficient. That against a 500 armor target a heavy blaster takes 2 shots to strip it(for a total duration of 1 to 2 seconds) and consumes 1440 flux in the process(and does hull damage on top) while a pulse laser takes 19 shots to strip for a total duration of 6 to 6.3 seconds and consumes 2090 flux. And because a hammerhead has 500 armor.

Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: MesoTroniK on September 06, 2019, 11:02:29 PM
As for medium tactical laser, just give phase lance more range. Medium taclaser won't be anti-shield, you have graviton for that. It won't be EMP, you have ion beam for that. It won't be a poke laser, we have small tactical laser for that. This leaves us anti-fighter and anti-armour beam, and burst. Sounds familiar? Well, there's an alternative of making it an expensive, high power anti-everything beam, but I'm not sure if it would be a good idea.
Phase Lance with more range would be hideously overpowered... Due to the massive burst and being effectively histcan. This would be especially harmful to frigates, and don't most of them become effectively obsolete during a game run fast enough already? This is also in reply to later Phase Lance comments though I don't think I should go and quote a whole bunch of posts heh.

Regarding the IR Pulse Laser buff in theory? Keep in mind this is pure theory-crafting I did not try this nor put too much thought into it... What might be interesting to do Alex is make it fire in double tap bursts, but not like the Heavy Mortar. Give it a 2 shot magazine that also reloads in paired shot clips not a trickle and it could fire 1 or both shots (or more) back to back, this way it can also be souped up with the Extended Magazines hullmod. Overall DPS the same, but would get a bit of burst potential but not really that much. Might also need to be made slightly more flux efficient if something like this happened. Anyways this would not only buff it some, but it would also make it more *fun*, having a burst fire small energy weapon in vanilla and not just another semi-auto one.
Two possible problems, if the burst means less sustained DPS.  1) Will it play nice with IPDAI hullmod?  2) Will the burst matter when damage is low enough that they need to be sustained for a while?

IR Pulse Laser plus IPDAI is passable PD, especially for Odyssey or Conquest.  I find IR Pulse Laser more useful for bigger ships since they get more range after ITU and can afford to bully weaker ships with them.  For something like Wolf, the range is too short, and it does not have the flux stats to support more than one or two.
Megas, I literally said in my post that you also directly quoted that my theory-crafted IR Pulse Laser rebalance would retain the same overall sustained DPS. Though I also said I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it heh, nor tested the concept at all.

@ MesoTronik:
The sweeper appears better on the new videos.  A beam like that, minus the sweeping, is close to what I had in mind.  Four tactical lasers on Eagle is too many mounts taken, especially if I do not have burst PD.  8 DP is a bargain though, or maybe not since the sweeping makes it miss small targets at times.  Your videos show why I do not want Graviton beam in the medium mounts if I want a long-range armor/hull breaker.
Is in your head Megas, I didn't change anything neither in stats nor scripts! A beam like that with those stats and doesn't sweep? Is incredibly overpowered against frigates and fighters but fine against larger ships. The sweeping is specifically meant to nerf them vs smaller targets but not change effectiveness very much vs larger ones along with just making it more interesting of a weapon. And yea 4 Tactical Lasers is too much but I did that so when comparing to dual Heavy Mining Lasers or dual Graviton Beams? Roughly equal OPs was being spent so it was a more fair comparison.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 06, 2019, 11:22:58 PM
Megas, I literally said in my post that you also directly quoted that my theory-crafted IR Pulse Laser rebalance would retain the same overall sustained DPS. Though I also said I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it heh, nor tested the concept at all.

And yet it's still worse for IPDAI use case. IR Pulse is already flux expensive for PD, last thing I want is for them to spike flux usage even more. Among their primary targets are Squalls/Annihilators - burst would overkill initial incoming missiles and then fail to keep them at bay due to reduced dps/rate of fire after burst. Initial overkill followed by dps drop would probably be a problem even against fighters, since weapons tend to select same target.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 06, 2019, 11:36:13 PM
Phase Lance with more range would be hideously overpowered... Due to the massive burst and being effectively histcan. This would be especially harmful to frigates, and don't most of them become effectively obsolete during a game run fast enough already? This is also in reply to later Phase Lance comments though I don't think I should go and quote a whole bunch of posts heh.
Phase Lance is more armour-piercing than burst, simply because it does soft flux damage. You can't rely on it too much, unless you significantly dwarf your opponent. However, when paired with ballistics, it's easy to specialise it. Same can be said about Tachyon Lance, with the exception that there's no destroyer-sized Tempest.
If we don't upgrade Phase Lance, then the other option is to obsolete it with this theoretical medium tactical laser, with exceptions being Tempest and Medusa, which I want to avoid, since we already have mining blaster. Or we just drop the medium beam option.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 06, 2019, 11:44:23 PM
If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency. 

This isn't really true either. You gain flux from your weapons at a rate of (weapon flux - dissipation), so if that difference is less than the dps*shield efficiency, you're building up flux in the enemy faster than your own (due to your weapons). Even if the weapon is inefficient, you can offset this with dissipation. For instance a weapon with 200 dps and 300 flux/sec has a 1.5 efficiency, but if my ship has 200 dissipation and the enemy ship has 1.0 shields, I am building up 100 flux/sec in my own ship and 200 in his in spite of the fact that 1.5>1.

This is the only reasons why energy weapons are viable vs kinetics: because the ships that can mount them have very high dissipations and capacities. Additionally, even if you are building up flux faster in your own ship, you will still win the flux war if you have sufficiently more capacity. Capacity is less dependable though because if you get a random spike of flux from elsewhere, you may suddenly switch to losing the flux war and you can't recover easily since you're actually gaining flux faster.

Ultimately they are also shooting you, so the equation is really (e. dps * f. shield eff. + f. (wpn flux - diss)) < (f. dps * e. shield eff. + e. (wpn. flux - diss)) where e and f are enemy and friendly. If that equation is satisfied, you're winning the flux war. High dps definitely helps in that case as long as you're not increasing your own weapon flux too much.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 07, 2019, 12:55:25 AM
I've just been using phase lances on some falcons in a stream - 2 on an SO variant with HMG's up front, 2 on a regular ITU variant with dual autocannons. No advanced optics.

In both cases I was very happy with the performance. For the SO its shortened range anyways and the ship has the flux to spam them. For the regular, they are used as finishers and anti-fighter/frigate "go away" weapons: the AI naturally uses them correctly most of the time because of the range gap. Not always, but often. I'm not going to complain if they are buffed, but honestly I'm happy with them on both variants. As has been often stated, its a soft flux anti-armor/hull weapon so not great against shields* unless the target is overwhelmed, but there are plenty of ships that can use them effectively in that role.

(Why Phase Lances instead of a heavy blaster or two? Partly because of not having heavy blasters around when doing the initial fit, but also because against small ships, heavy blaster shots miss. A lot. Phase lances have the same armor penetration as heavy blasters, but much better flux efficiency and accuracy. I'm fighting pirate swarms at the moment, and watching dual phase lances clear wings of fighters and pop frigates is great fun.)

If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency. 

This isn't really true either. You gain flux from your weapons at a rate of (weapon flux - dissipation), so if that difference is less than the dps*shield efficiency, you're building up flux in the enemy faster than your own (due to your weapons). Even if the weapon is inefficient, you can offset this with dissipation. For instance a weapon with 200 dps and 300 flux/sec has a 1.5 efficiency, but if my ship has 200 dissipation and the enemy ship has 1.0 shields, I am building up 100 flux/sec in my own ship and 200 in his in spite of the fact that 1.5>1.

This is the only reasons why energy weapons are viable vs kinetics: because the ships that can mount them have very high dissipations and capacities. Additionally, even if you are building up flux faster in your own ship, you will still win the flux war if you have sufficiently more capacity. Capacity is less dependable though because if you get a random spike of flux from elsewhere, you may suddenly switch to losing the flux war and you can't recover easily since you're actually gaining flux faster.

Ultimately they are also shooting you, so the equation is really (e. dps * f. shield eff. + f. (wpn flux - diss)) < (f. dps * e. shield eff. + e. (wpn. flux - diss)) where e and f are enemy and friendly. If that equation is satisfied, you're winning the flux war. High dps definitely helps in that case as long as you're not increasing your own weapon flux too much.

I think this is what Goumindoing meant by saying "... firing above your own flux..." as in the portion of your own flux higher than your own dissipation, but your example and formula is mostly correct for constantly firing weapons (add in an absolute value on weapon flux - dissipation, as the hard flux can't be dissipated with shields up). As a further complication though: weapons don't always constantly fire, but instead have some duty cycle based on the situation, and that duty cycle factor is multiplied by both dps and weapon flux, but not dissipation, and is between 0 and 1.

In effect, the weapon flux wants to run higher even that what the situation above implies: when you can't shoot (or can shoot less than your dissipation) but the enemy's shields are up, you do not want to be stuck with a flux bar pinned to the hard flux limit. Instead, you want to be dissipating soft flux you've already pumped into the enemy as hard flux, and the perfect ratio is the average duty cycle. (This situation can happen by maneuvering, both on the part of the enemy or yourself, or by ion damage, or weapons being disabled, etc. Retreating to a range where you and the enemy can't hit each other, but you BOTH are still required to keep its shields up because of the threat, is an example of duty cycle manipulation: having the ability to do so means that you can run even MORE flux hot.) (Of course retreating to a range where the enemy has to keep shields up and you don't is just winning.)

Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Amoebka on September 07, 2019, 12:57:25 AM
This isn't really true either. You gain flux from your weapons at a rate of (weapon flux - dissipation), so if that difference is less than the dps*shield efficiency, you're building up flux in the enemy faster than your own (due to your weapons). Even if the weapon is inefficient, you can offset this with dissipation. For instance a weapon with 200 dps and 300 flux/sec has a 1.5 efficiency, but if my ship has 200 dissipation and the enemy ship has 1.0 shields, I am building up 100 flux/sec in my own ship and 200 in his in spite of the fact that 1.5>1.
Well, that's only true for weapons that deal hard flux, i.e. not phase lance. Beams build up soft flux that the enemy dissipates at their own dissipation rate with shields up. So you aren't building up 200 flux in their ship, you are building up (200-their dissipation after shield upkeep).
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 07, 2019, 05:46:26 AM
That isn't how it works. If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency.  The inefficiency of the heavy blaster is made up by the fact that its minimum damage versus armor number occurs at 2883 armor. Which means that at 500 armor its 37.5% efficient while the pulse laser against 500 armor is 15.1% efficient. That against a 500 armor target a heavy blaster takes 2 shots to strip it(for a total duration of 1 to 2 seconds) and consumes 1440 flux in the process(and does hull damage on top) while a pulse laser takes 19 shots to strip for a total duration of 6 to 6.3 seconds and consumes 2090 flux. And because a hammerhead has 500 armor.
On paper, it looks bad, but it practice, sometimes heavy blaster is more effective than pulse laser at winning the flux war (against inferior or equal opponents), then finishing off the enemy after the war is won, because of the higher DPS (and better anti-armor).  I tried both, and often, Heavy Blaster is more effective overall, especially if the ship can only squeeze so much on its mounts.  Also, what intrinsic_parity said.

Quote
Ultimately they are also shooting you, so the equation is really (e. dps * f. shield eff. + f. (wpn flux - diss)) < (f. dps * e. shield eff. + e. (wpn. flux - diss)) where e and f are enemy and friendly. If that equation is satisfied, you're winning the flux war. High dps definitely helps in that case as long as you're not increasing your own weapon flux too much.
This is a large reason why Heavy Blaster can be better than the more efficient Pulse Laser or (for some ships) the most efficient IR Pulse Laser.  Energy weapon ranges are terrible!  The ships using them WILL get shot back, and WILL take hard flux on shields from the enemy.  Higher DPS can mitigate this because the enemy has less time to fire back before losing the flux war.

Not all enemies are single behemoths that take more than your flux bar to beat.  Sometimes, it is a group, and taking out one isolated enemy quickly with superior DPS is nice.

Phase Lance with more range would be hideously overpowered... Due to the massive burst and being effectively histcan. This would be especially harmful to frigates, and don't most of them become effectively obsolete during a game run fast enough already? This is also in reply to later Phase Lance comments though I don't think I should go and quote a whole bunch of posts heh.
Even with Advanced Optics, Phase Lance is decently useful at best and a bit underwhelming at worst.  Usually, I need hard flux support from other weapons to make it good.  If anything, I feel like I pay too much OP for 800 range Phase Lance.  600 is so short than I usually take Pulse Laser over Phase Lance because the former does hard flux and the latter does not.  Rarely is the burst more useful than hard flux.

For IR Pulse Laser, you mentioned same overall DPS, but you were not clear if you meant over a short period of time or sustained.  Same overall DPS over say... three seconds would mean lower sustained DPS due to the initial burst spiking DPS over the first second or so.

As for spiking flux for IPDAI like TaLaR points out, I do not know what to make of that without trying it out.  If it increases effective accuracy of PD because of "more dakka", then it may offset the flux spike.  Likely users of IPDAI IRPL are large ships (Aurora, capitals), who are more able to take the flux spike.

As for double tac laser overpowered?  Are you kidding me?!  Even the test results shown by your videos seem a bit on the slow side, but acceptable for the job they do, which is a long-range finisher after shields are defeated.  Tactical laser spam is not overpowered against the enemy (beams are slow at killing PD threats like those fighters and frigates, or stripping armor of big ships), and I seriously doubt one that is roughly double (somewhat less DPS, but better anti-armor) is too, if on a medium mount.  If it was, I would not be clamoring for a long-range simple damage medium beam effective against non-shield defenses.  (Could be new weapon, or could be phase lance or burst heavy laser getting at least 800 range.)  I guess a double beam would be overpowered if it was in a small mount, but this is a valuable medium mount.  Tactical laser in medium mount is underpowered, but it is the best option for long-range non-shield damage.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Igncom1 on September 07, 2019, 06:06:14 AM
Say what you will about the AM blaster, it's still very funny to put on midline ships.

Nothing like a centurion wielding the power of a god!

Or a strike eagle for annihilating heavy targets!
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Morrokain on September 07, 2019, 08:27:48 AM
Damage boost from flux is will be in the next release

I certainly hope not. I really don't like that mechanic. I feel like its just a band aid fix to energy weapons that actually makes them counter-intuitive. It also promotes razor-edge piloting of high tech ships that the player can utilize to make those ships feel overpowered while the AI is rarely effective with it. It pretty much happens on accident if it is, but usually flux damage boost either isn't a factor one way or the other or causes an overload that results in the likely death of an expensive fleet asset when in the AI's hands.

That mechanic will make energy weapon balance worse, not better, imho.

At the very least I would like a way to disable this: the point where the projectile spawns glows in increasing intensity as flux values get higher... last time that mechanic was in place there was no way to get rid of it and it basically means I will have to remove energy weapons from my mod altogether. It gets so big it covers the whole weapon sprite.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 07, 2019, 08:30:45 AM
At the very least I would like a way to disable this: the point where the projectile spawns glows in increasing intensity as flux values get higher... last time that mechanic was in place there was no way to get rid of it and it basically means I will have to remove energy weapons from my mod altogether. It gets so big it covers the whole weapon sprite.

It's back but it's skill-driven - i.e. there's a skill you can pick that will enable it for the ship piloted by a person with the skill.

You can change the size of the glow by specifying:

specialWeaponGlowWidth
specialWeaponGlowHeight

In your .wpn files.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Wyvern on September 07, 2019, 08:32:04 AM
We had completely different experiences with that - I found the high flux bonus to make sense, and be highly useful for the AI, and especially useful for boosting energy PD to a point where it's effective.

But never fear: it's coming back in the form of a high-tier combat skill; you can easily skip it if you don't like it.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 07, 2019, 08:38:21 AM
We had completely different experiences with that - I found the high flux bonus to make sense, and be highly useful for the AI, and especially useful for boosting energy PD to a point where it's effective.

Yep, AI is nowhere near as good at close combat venting as player and is typically sitting with significant amount of hard flux. High flux bonus makes not vent-spamming an actual choice, rather than a mistake.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Morrokain on September 07, 2019, 09:13:01 AM
^ Ah good to know!

As a player chosen skill (will AI officers get access to this, btw?) it makes a lot more sense to me. And its truly great that I can now control the glow size!

@Wyvern @TaLar:

I do see what you two are saying. I guess the point I was making wasn't that the AI didn't benefit at all, but that the optimal strategy of the mechanic (staying at 70-90% flux) was something dangerous to the AI and only really maximized in the player's hands. The AI likely benefits mostly by accident, and that can sometimes be dangerous design to support. For reference to why the AI will likely have problems, see:

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16439.0

and Alex's reply:
Thank you, made a note to take a look when I get a chance!

Just as a general note, a lot of this stuff is beyond what the AI can reasonably do - it has to deal with general cases; getting too specific often results in improved behavior for that one case and considerably worse behavior for things that kind of look like it but are crucially different in some what the AI doesn't pick up on. Still, definitely some things here to look at.

High flux boosting damage isn't a general case- it is a specific case. The AI has to constantly be in tune with its flux levels and make all its fight/flight decisions based around that trade-off, or not in tune at all and just ignore the mechanic completely. Either case causes AI vs player balance problems if all energy weapons are balanced around this (I understand now that they won't be, but that was my initial fear). The decision to flee becomes much more complicated in situations like:

Spoiler
80% Flux - Salvo of weapons that would finish the enemy carrier with an eliminate command on it would bring flux to 95%.
Normally, the AI only has to consider whether nearby threats (or the carrier itself) has enough potential firepower to cause an overload. Retreating and venting may be the right call in that situation for a ballistic ship. But an energy ship with flux boosting damage would ideally not want to make the same decision without also considering the damage loss from venting. Maybe after the vent the salvo would no longer be enough to break the shields and finish off the carrier. Maybe incoming missiles now can't be stopped by PD and so shields or armor take damage, etc. It's a much more complex decision for the AI at all times and I think it would be difficult to get it right in every situation.
[close]

So for PD, for instance, I would rather that performance be based on the weapon itself rather than a general mechanic the AI probably won't be able to handle in all cases.

On venting- just because the AI isn't good at close range venting and so has higher flux levels doesn't make the mechanic exploitable for the AI compared to the player. That is mostly an accident of other problems the AI is having inadvertently benefiting it in this case. It actually creates a dependency on poor behavior to operate effectively and discourages solving the "root issue" since that dependency causes other adjustments to become necessary if it is ever improved upon. 
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Alex on September 07, 2019, 09:34:22 AM
will AI officers get access to this, btw?

It's available for officers, yeah; I can see it being very useful, depending on how a ship is built. It's in the same tier as Gunnery Implants, btw.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Morrokain on September 07, 2019, 10:07:09 AM
^ Player officers yes. They have control over their loadouts. Random AI officers for faction fleets? Err, maybe not so much, but I think there are ways to control what skills they get in the faction file so it shouldn't really make a difference.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 07, 2019, 10:28:24 AM
If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency. 
...
Ultimately they are also shooting you, so the equation is really (e. dps * f. shield eff. + f. (wpn flux - diss)) < (f. dps * e. shield eff. + e. (wpn. flux - diss)) where e and f are enemy and friendly. If that equation is satisfied, you're winning the flux war. High dps definitely helps in that case as long as you're not increasing your own weapon flux too much.

I think this is what Goumindoing meant by saying "... firing above your own flux..." as in the portion of your own flux higher than your own dissipation, but your example and formula is mostly correct for constantly firing weapons (add in an absolute value on weapon flux - dissipation, as the hard flux can't be dissipated with shields up). As a further complication though: weapons don't always constantly fire, but instead have some duty cycle based on the situation, and that duty cycle factor is multiplied by both dps and weapon flux, but not dissipation, and is between 0 and 1.
Yeah I brought it up because weapon efficiency doesn't directly contribute to the inequality, and you can easily devise scenarios where bad weapon efficiency is still winning the flux battle.

Also, absolute value would be wrong, that would imply that when weapon flux<dissipation your flux increases by the difference between them, essentially meaning your excess dissipation was increasing your flux which is obviously never the case. What you would really need to account mathematically for the fact that hard flux can't be dissipated is a switching function, something like:

Switch = 1 if (soft flux > 0) || (shields are down & total flux > 0)
Switch = 0 if (soft flux == 0 & shields are up) || (total flux == 0)
and then the term in the inequality would be Switch*(weapon flux - dissipation)

but that's too much to type out.... (crap I just did it)

To deal with weapons turning on and off, I would probably make all the variables functions of time with weapon flux as the sum of all weapons currently firing and dps as the dps of weapons currently hitting shields. Then you would be either winning or losing at any given time. You could try to average it with cycles too, but that would only ever be an approximation. I think as a pilot you're more thinking about the current situation and if you're losing, how can you alter your current actions to change the balance, rather than averaged cycles and stuff. It would be interesting to look at cycles, but I'm not sure how you could come up with a general approximation like that, since the actual periodicity won't be regular. 

Quote
In effect, the weapon flux wants to run higher even that what the situation above implies: when you can't shoot (or can shoot less than your dissipation) but the enemy's shields are up, you do not want to be stuck with a flux bar pinned to the hard flux limit. Instead, you want to be dissipating soft flux you've already pumped into the enemy as hard flux, and the perfect ratio is the average duty cycle. (This situation can happen by maneuvering, both on the part of the enemy or yourself, or by ion damage, or weapons being disabled, etc. Retreating to a range where you and the enemy can't hit each other, but you BOTH are still required to keep its shields up because of the threat, is an example of duty cycle manipulation: having the ability to do so means that you can run even MORE flux hot.) (Of course retreating to a range where the enemy has to keep shields up and you don't is just winning.)
If I understand what you are saying here then I agree. I think you're saying that you're happy to drive your own flux up firing weapons if it means your drive the enemies hard flux up because you can back off and dissipate soft flux while maintaining enough of a threat that the enemy doesn't vent, thus gaining an advantage in the flux war even if you lose the flux battle (gain flux faster while firing weapons) so to speak. That's a way you can win the flux war, bit to sort of depends on your ability to prevent the enemy from dropping shields or venting. I guess torpedos and missiles actually do this quite well just by existing on you ship. It's an interesting idea that I've seen in other ability based PvP games as well: the threat of doing something is often more valuable than actually doing it because you force the enemy to always be prepared for your ability. I don't know if the AI actually works that way though.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 07, 2019, 01:10:37 PM
Yeah I brought it up because weapon efficiency doesn't directly contribute to the inequality, and you can easily devise scenarios where bad weapon efficiency is still winning the flux battle.

It does. E.G. suppose you have 1500 cap, 100 dissipation, are firing two weapons, one that is 1 to 1 for 100 dps and one that is .5 to 1 for 100 dps but does it in 500 damage chunks. Suppose your enemy has 1000 cap and is firing at dissipation and has .8 shields.

The rate at which you flux him out is 1000/(100x.8 ) and the rate at which he fluxes you out in similar. If you add flux over your dissipation then youre adding soft flux and trading for hard flux. Which is fine if they arent firing back or you need to hit armor.  But otherwise you would add 500x.8/1000=40% flux to his capacitors while adding 1000/1500 = 66% flux to your own.

It should be obvious that, if your flux is going uo at a faster percentage than theirs as a result of you firing the gun then firing the weapon contributes to you losing the flux war. And as you can see, both the weapon and shield efficiency matter in that calculation

Now, You might still win the flux war when shooting that weapon over flux. But if you do you are going to win the flux war with a higher total flux than if you had not fired it

Edit:
This extrapolates pretty easily into other understandings.

1) Better efficiency of weapons lets you win the flux war better/faster. You should tend to fire as efficient as you can up to your max dissipation. This happens regardless of the quality of shields the enemy has.
2) Weapon efficiency doesn't matter once you've punched through shields. Go ahead and flux dump
3) AI ships cannot partake in this behavior so make sure they're filled to the brim with efficient weapons up to their dissipation(or dissipation-shield) and let them finish with ammo based weapons OR
4) AI ships cannot partake in this behavior and so prefer shorter range anti-armor weapons compared to their anti-shield weapons (so as to keep the inefficient weapons from firing into shields)

And then you can say "but what ships that cannot fire their entire flux dissipation" and my response to that is "what ships"?


An example of point 4. If you're going to fit an Aurora you might consider 2 pulse lasers and 1 HB or 1 Pulse laser, 3 IR pulse, and 2 HB. If you do this, make sure the pulse lasers/IR pulse are in the forward most mounts so that they fire first and most often
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 07, 2019, 01:29:25 PM
If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency. 

This is the quote I was taking issue with. Obviously less efficient weapons are worse, but the relation ship is not direct as stated by this quote.

Yeah I brought it up because weapon efficiency doesn't directly contribute to the inequality,

Hence 'doesn't directly contribute to the inequallity'. Nothing in the relationship cares about the ratio directly, it cares about the flux generation relative to the dissipation and the dps, which are related to the efficiency but not determined by the efficiency. Im not trying to say that efficient doesn't matter, just that it doesn't determine if you will win the flux war as implied in the original quote.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 07, 2019, 02:14:27 PM
If you're firing above your own flux you're losing the flux war against someone who isn't unless the shield damage efficiency of the weapon is better than the inverse of their shield efficiency. 

This is the quote I was taking issue with. Obviously less efficient weapons are worse, but the relation ship is not direct as stated by this quote.

Yeah I brought it up because weapon efficiency doesn't directly contribute to the inequality,

Hence 'doesn't directly contribute to the inequallity'. Nothing in the relationship cares about the ratio directly, it cares about the flux generation relative to the dissipation and the dps, which are related to the efficiency but not determined by the efficiency. Im not trying to say that efficient doesn't matter, just that it doesn't determine if you will win the flux war as implied in the original quote.

No. If the flux efficiency of the weapon is worse than the inverse of the flux efficiency of the shield and you are over your standard dissipation then you pay 1 flux for >1 flux damage.

If your flux efficiency vs shields is 1.4 and their shield is .7(the inverse of which is 1.43) then you use 1 flux to do .98 damage. You only "win the flux war" here if you have more flux than what you're shooting at(and sometimes the sum of the things you're shooting at. This contributes to you losing the flux war.

Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 07, 2019, 02:43:26 PM

No. If the flux efficiency of the weapon is worse than the inverse of the flux efficiency of the shield and you are over your standard dissipation then you pay 1 flux for >1 flux damage.

If your flux efficiency vs shields is 1.4 and their shield is .7(the inverse of which is 1.43) then you use 1 flux to do .98 damage. You only "win the flux war" here if you have more flux than what you're shooting at(and sometimes the sum of the things you're shooting at. This contributes to you losing the flux war.

Your flux increases at a rate of (flux generation - dissipation) which is less than flux generation. If you had no dissipation, then what you said would be true. But if you have dissipation, you're not generating the full flux amount in your own ship because some is being dissipated. So you're not paying 'full price' unless you have no spare dissipation.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 07, 2019, 03:08:16 PM

No. If the flux efficiency of the weapon is worse than the inverse of the flux efficiency of the shield and you are over your standard dissipation then you pay 1 flux for >1 flux damage.

If your flux efficiency vs shields is 1.4 and their shield is .7(the inverse of which is 1.43) then you use 1 flux to do .98 damage. You only "win the flux war" here if you have more flux than what you're shooting at(and sometimes the sum of the things you're shooting at. This contributes to you losing the flux war.

Your flux increases at a rate of (flux generation - dissipation) which is less than flux generation. If you had no dissipation, then what you said would be true. But if you have dissipation, you're not generating the full flux amount in your own ship because some is being dissipated. So you're not paying 'full price' unless you have no spare dissipation.

Yes but what does dissipation have to do with firing over dissipation?

OK lets say you have 1000 flux dissipation. You can fill this in two ways, with heavy blasters or with pulse lasers.

Pulse lasers eat 999 flux dissipation for 909 DPS. Heavy Basters eat 1440 dissipation for 1000 DPS or 2160 dissipation for 1500 DPS.

Who wins the flux war? A: The pulse lasers. Not only are the heavy blasters shooting 440 OVER dissipation for 278 extra DPS(or 1160 over)  -> .694 efficiency which makes this a loser against anything but 1.44 shields or higher but if they fired in time such that they did not fire over dissipation they would do 694 DPS. Which we might note is less than 909. So they lose the flux war either way.

Now you might be saying "DUH" but apparently not because this is the kind of thing that you have to ignore in order to come to the conclusion that you had. This is because these considerations happen when youre fit. And every ship can fill out its flux dissipation with weapons. There are no ships that have excess dissipation to fire all of their weapons and they just don't have enough slots. This means that you can always move to more efficient weapons in more slots in order to keep your flux rate tied to your dissipation rate.

And it means that the purpose of "flux inefficient" weapons like the heavy blaster is not because they're going to win you the flux war, they're not, they're going to make it harder to win. Its because they're going to kill armor faster, when the flux war is already won.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 07, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
PL may win straight AI vs AI, but player has many tricks up his sleeve to make HB come out on top.

You take a few potshots, retreat just out of enemy firing range, quick vent, repeat... Since HBs use up flux so fast, half or more of your combat cycle is spent venting with double efficiency(or even more considering RFC mod and PGM skill).

This works because:
- AI is overly cautious with keeping shields up.
- AI ships and characters are usually not optimized for dissipation, venting and shield efficiency. So even if AI opponent tried to do simultaneous vent, it would likely result in getting shot by HBs before it's able to raise shield.
- Even if AI was somehow optimized and willing to vent, I could launch annihilators/pilums right before starting my vent thus forcing opponent to deal with slowly approaching missiles before they can safely start their vent.

Last point actually gives me an idea - shotgun-like energy weapon with large burst, long cooldown and slowly moving projectiles, yet decent range. To fire before going into vent while simultaneously denying counter-vent. Medium slot.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Harmful Mechanic on September 07, 2019, 04:29:48 PM
Some variation in soft qualities like bolt speed would also help distinguish energy weapons from each other while not erasing the lack of inaccuracy that differentiates projectile energy weapons from ballistics.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 07, 2019, 04:38:29 PM

No. If the flux efficiency of the weapon is worse than the inverse of the flux efficiency of the shield and you are over your standard dissipation then you pay 1 flux for >1 flux damage.

If your flux efficiency vs shields is 1.4 and their shield is .7(the inverse of which is 1.43) then you use 1 flux to do .98 damage. You only "win the flux war" here if you have more flux than what you're shooting at(and sometimes the sum of the things you're shooting at. This contributes to you losing the flux war.

Your flux increases at a rate of (flux generation - dissipation) which is less than flux generation. If you had no dissipation, then what you said would be true. But if you have dissipation, you're not generating the full flux amount in your own ship because some is being dissipated. So you're not paying 'full price' unless you have no spare dissipation.

Yes but what does dissipation have to do with firing over dissipation?

OK lets say you have 1000 flux dissipation. You can fill this in two ways, with heavy blasters or with pulse lasers.

Pulse lasers eat 999 flux dissipation for 909 DPS. Heavy Basters eat 1440 dissipation for 1000 DPS or 2160 dissipation for 1500 DPS.

Who wins the flux war? A: The pulse lasers. Not only are the heavy blasters shooting 440 OVER dissipation for 278 extra DPS(or 1160 over)  -> .694 efficiency which makes this a loser against anything but 1.44 shields or higher but if they fired in time such that they did not fire over dissipation they would do 694 DPS. Which we might note is less than 909. So they lose the flux war either way.

Now you might be saying "DUH" but apparently not because this is the kind of thing that you have to ignore in order to come to the conclusion that you had. This is because these considerations happen when youre fit. And every ship can fill out its flux dissipation with weapons. There are no ships that have excess dissipation to fire all of their weapons and they just don't have enough slots. This means that you can always move to more efficient weapons in more slots in order to keep your flux rate tied to your dissipation rate.

And it means that the purpose of "flux inefficient" weapons like the heavy blaster is not because they're going to win you the flux war, they're not, they're going to make it harder to win. Its because they're going to kill armor faster, when the flux war is already won.

Yes, you've constructed a scenario where the ship with bad weapon efficiency loses, but it didn't lose because 1.44>1,  it loses because of a combination of factors including the two ships dissipations, dps, flux generation etc. (all the things that go into the inequality). Comparing a weapon efficiency to a shield efficiency doesn't tell you if the weapon is contributing to winning the flux war by itself. I can construct scenarios easily where a ship with worse shield efficiency than 1.44 wins against a ship with a heavy blaster. All I'm saying is that comparing weapon efficiency to the enemies shield efficiency doesn't tell you if its helping to beat that ship, you have to consider all the other factors that go into the flux war as well.

Firing a heavy blaster will always make it harder to win than if you were firing a more efficient weapon with the same dps instead, but firing a heavy blaster will help more than not firing a lot of the time, and it also may help more than a lower dps weapon in some situations as well. Just looking at weapon efficiency and shield efficiency is not sufficient to figure out if its helping or not.



example 1:
ship 1: 10000 capacity, 100 dps, 150 wpn flux/sec (.66 weapon efficiency), 150 dissipation, 1 shields
ship 2: 10000 capacity, 175 dps, 100 wpn flux/sec, 100 dissipation, 1.6 shields (1.6 > 1/.66)

result: ship 2 overloads in 62.5 seconds, ship 1 overloads in 57.1 seconds so ship 2 wins. The weapon .66 efficiency weapon is not winning the flux war even though its efficiency is better than the inverse of shield efficiency.

Also notice that if I replace the 100dps/150fps weapon with a 500/750 weapon (that has the same efficiency), ship 1 overloads in 12.9 seconds and ship 2 overloads in 12.5 seconds meaning ship 1 wins by increasing dps without increasing efficiency.


example 2:
ship 1: 1400 capacity, wpn1: 100 dps 100 fps, wpn2: 100 dps 140 fps, dissipation 200, shields 1
ship 2: 1000 capacity, 200 dps, 200 fps, dissipation 200, shields 1
results:
case 1: ship 1 only fires weapon 1 --> ship 1 overloads in 7 seconds, ship 2 overloads in 10 seconds so ship 2 wins
case 2: ship 1 fires both weapons --> ship 1 overloads in 5.83 seconds, ship 2 overloads in 5 seconds so ship 1 wins

in this case, firing a 1.4 efficiency weapon into 1 efficiency shields results in a win when the ship would have otherwise lost, so firing the weapon wins the flux war compared to not firing the weapon


example 3:
ship 1: 2000 capacity, wpn1: 200 dps 220 fps, wpn 2&3: 100 dps 100 fps,  dissipation 300, shields 1
ship 2: 1000 capacity, 500 dps, 500 fps, dissipation 500, shields 1

case 1: ship 1 fires wpn 1&2 --> ship 1 overloads in 3.85 seconds, ship 2 overloads in 3.33 seconds so ship 1 wins
case 2: ship 1 fires wpn 2&3 --> ship 1 overloads in 4 seconds, ship 2 overloads in 5 seconds so ship 2 wins

this demonstrates that firing a more inefficient weapon with higher dps in place a of higher efficiency weapon with lower dps alows the ship to win when it otherwise would have lost, so firing the 1.1 efficiency weapon into 1 efficiency shields is better than a 1 efficiency weapon in this case
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 07, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
@intrinsic_parity

Easier way to describe the situation is 'wasted dissipation'. If you have any, you are doing it wrong. Most builds should have primary weapons flux + shield maintenance >= dissipation. Examples 2&3 break this rule in their lose scenario.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 07, 2019, 05:06:15 PM
@intrinsic_parity

Easier way to describe the situation is 'wasted dissipation'. If you have any, you are doing it wrong. Most builds should have primary weapons flux + shield maintenance >= dissipation. Examples 2&3 break this rule in their lose scenario.
Yes, inefficient weapons that fully utilize dissipation are better than efficient weapons that fail too. I could also concoct a scenario where inefficient weapons leverage a major capacity advantage when an efficient weapon would not, even if the inefficient weapon exceeds the dissipation limit. Basically, inefficient weapons with high dps can allow you to leverage advantages in flux stats to win the flux war (particularly when weapon mounts are limited). None of this accounts for range either. Basically the whole point I was trying to make is that it's more complicated than just comparing weapon efficiency to enemy shield efficiency.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 07, 2019, 05:14:39 PM
Yes, you've constructed a scenario where the ship with bad weapon efficiency loses, but it didn't lose because 1.44>1,  it loses because of a combination of factors including the two ships dissipations, dps, flux generation etc.

No. The ship has a 1 to 1 weapon. You don't even know whether or not it wins the flux war properly piloted as you have no clue what kind of weapons the other ship has. It could be a 2 to 1 weapon it would not matter.

What I did was construct a situation where the ship with the inefficient weapon against shields does itself a disservice to fire that weapon against an opponents shields. Its very easy to construct such a scenario and it is very hard to construct such a scenario where it is not the case. In fact, if you're at the fitting screen its almost impossible to construct such a scenario such that the ship with the heavy blaster(less efficient) would be better off in a flux war than if that ship had fit a pulse laser(more efficient). This is because there are very very few ships that are not able to fit more weapon flux per second than their dissipation can handle.(and the only ones that realistically can do so by fitting PD weapons with absurd flux efficiency)

Quote
example 1:
ship 1: 10000 capacity, 100 dps, 150 wpn flux/sec (.66 weapon efficiency), 150 dissipation, 1 shields
ship 2: 10000 capacity, 175 dps, 100 wpn flux/sec, 100 dissipation, 1.6 shields (1.6 > 1/.66)

result: ship 2 overloads in 62.5 seconds, ship 1 overloads in 57.1 seconds so ship 2 wins. The weapon .66 efficiency weapon is not winning the flux war even though its efficiency is better than the inverse of shield efficiency.

Also notice that if I replace the 100dps/150fps weapon with a 500/750 weapon (that has the same efficiency), ship 1 overloads in 12.9 seconds and ship 2 overloads in 12.5 seconds meaning ship 1 wins by increasing dps without increasing efficiency.

The weapon efficiency of .666 is greater than the inverse of the shield efficiency (.602) and such you will do better by spending flux over your dissipation level rather than not spending flux over your dissipation level. This is because you're adding more flux to the enemy 1.6 than it costs you to fire the weapon 1.5. You're losing this fight when you're NOT doing this because the weapon is inefficient. If it was a 1 to 1 weapon that did 150 dps for 150 fps then you would be better off with that weapon.

That's the point... Its what i was telling you. Thank you for showing it?

If the shield was 1.4 then 500/750 weapon fired 100% of the time would do WORSE than the 100/150 weapon fired 100% of the time. Ship 1 would lose faster by firing its weapon more because you would deal 1.4 damage and spend 1.5 flux. If you're under your dissipation you always fire. Always fire your dissipation.

Quote
example 2:
ship 1: 1400 capacity, wpn1: 100 dps 100 fps, wpn2: 100 dps 140 fps, dissipation 200, shields 1
ship 2: 1000 capacity, 200 dps, 200 fps, dissipation 200, shields 1
results:
case 1: ship 1 only fires weapon 1 --> ship 1 overloads in 7 seconds, ship 2 overloads in 10 seconds so ship 2 wins
case 2: ship 1 fires both weapons --> ship 1 overloads in 5.83 seconds, ship 2 overloads in 5 seconds so ship 1 wins

in this case, firing a 1.4 efficiency weapon into 1 efficiency shields results in a win when the ship would have otherwise lost, so firing the weapon wins the flux war compared to not firing the weapon

In this situation ship 1 is better off firing weapon 2 less often than maximum. They would want to fire weapon 1 all the time and weapon 2 only 71% of the time. It is obvious that not firing a weapon with spare dissipation is bad.

Quote
this demonstrates that firing a more inefficient weapon with higher dps in place a of higher efficiency weapon with lower dps alows the ship to win when it otherwise would have lost, so firing the 1.1 efficiency weapon into 1 efficiency shields is better than a 1 efficiency weapon in this case

What it demonstrates is that you do not understand the constraints and freedoms of the dilemma. The constraints and freedoms are related to fitting choices and non-binary firing choices. Which is to say in example 3 the ship could have fit 3 of weapon 2 and done 300 dps for 300 dissipation and been better off. Or it could have fired weapon 1 91% of the time instead of 100% of the time and been better off*. They did not gain in the fitting

*Actually in this case they would be better off firing the high flux weapon. They spend 20/2000 = 1% flux in order to deal 18/1000 flux = 1.8% flux to the target. So firing ALL of the weapons is ideal here. Ship 2 overloads in 2.5 seconds and ship 1 overloads in 3.2 seconds. After 2.5 seconds ship 1 has 450 cap left. In scenario 1 ship 1 has 268 cap left by not firing weapon 1. If they had fired so that they generated no hard flux ship 2 overloads in 3.43 seconds and ship 1 has 281 cap left.

But you should be able to look at your examples see how thin the margins are here. This is why, in the second post i explained it more fully. That rather than simply looking at the weapon efficiency and shield efficiency you had to look at the ratio of percentages of flux cost versus the percentage of flux damage. But the "dumb algorithm" is otherwise pretty good. This is because its harder to judge relative capacity when you're fitting and because player ships should tend to have more capacity than AI ships and the even dumber algorithm (don't fire <1.0 shield efficiency weapons into an enemies shield unless you have spare dissipation) is still pretty good for understanding what is going on since 1.0 is a pretty decent baseline for shields.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 07, 2019, 06:32:43 PM
But you should be able to look at your examples see how thin the margins are here. This is why, in the second post i explained it more fully. That rather than simply looking at the weapon efficiency and shield efficiency you had to look at the ratio of percentages of flux cost versus the percentage of flux damage. But the "dumb algorithm" is otherwise pretty good. This is because its harder to judge relative capacity when you're fitting and because player ships should tend to have more capacity than AI ships and the even dumber algorithm (don't fire <1.0 shield efficiency weapons into an enemies shield unless you have spare dissipation) is still pretty good for understanding what is going on since 1.0 is a pretty decent baseline for shields.

I have agreed with all of your general rules of thumb but you were not presenting them as rules of thumb initially which is what I was disagreeing with. All I was trying to point out was that it's a bit more complicated in some cases. I don't disagree with your assessments of general trends. The heavy blaster is super inefficient so I would agree that it rarely benefits the flux war except to leverage capacity advantages (which is what you account for by using percentage of total capacity instead of straight flux values). But less egregiously inefficient weapons like the plasma cannon are still filling the same role which is to leverage flux stat advantages with somewhat inefficient damage.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 07, 2019, 09:19:41 PM
Plasma cannons have the same efficiency of pulse lasers and are quite efficient at shooting all types of defenses. Plasma cannons leverage higher flux dissipation stats and the inability to lower shields against them not higher capacity.

The % of capacity is not a rule of thumb and you did not agree with them you specifically said they were wrong. You wrote two big effort posts about how wrong it was without understanding what you were arguing against.

Its OK to be wrong. So long as when you are you can correct it
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Wyvern on September 07, 2019, 10:18:53 PM
For me, one of the biggest examples for the "Heavy Blaster vs Pulse Laser" argument is the Tempest: I can fit two pulse lasers, or I can fit one heavy blaster; the latter option has a higher flux cost and a lower DPS, but also saves 8 ordnance points, which is a -lot- on a frigate - enough to, say, fit hardened shields -and- an extra two capacitors.  Which of those variants will "win the flux war"?  Well, it's actually pretty close, but here's the thing: it doesn't actually -matter- who "wins the flux war", because the HB variant can afford to lower its shields, while the pulse laser variant will die in about three hits if it's stupid enough to try that.

And if we put these two variants into an actual larger scale battle instead of a theory-crafted cage match?  The HB variant is even more clearly superior here - the combination of larger flux pool and more efficient shield means it's much more survivable, while the superior armor penetration of the HB means it's going to be a lot more able to either take advantage of vulnerable opponents, or force ships to shield against its shots and leave vulnerabilities open elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: MesoTroniK on September 07, 2019, 10:29:32 PM
As for double tac laser overpowered?  Are you kidding me?!  Even the test results shown by your videos seem a bit on the slow side, but acceptable for the job they do, which is a long-range finisher after shields are defeated.  Tactical laser spam is not overpowered against the enemy (beams are slow at killing PD threats like those fighters and frigates, or stripping armor of big ships), and I seriously doubt one that is roughly double (somewhat less DPS, but better anti-armor) is too, if on a medium mount.  If it was, I would not be clamoring for a long-range simple damage medium beam effective against non-shield defenses.  (Could be new weapon, or could be phase lance or burst heavy laser getting at least 800 range.)  I guess a double beam would be overpowered if it was in a small mount, but this is a valuable medium mount.  Tactical laser in medium mount is underpowered, but it is the best option for long-range non-shield damage.
I am not kidding you, I am deadly serious. I know Megas as I been there, the Heavy Mining Laser didn't always sweep and some other mods add what is basically a double power Tactical Laser with no special mechanics. You are not looking at the whole picture, a weapons effectiveness is more than just time to kill it also involves Player Agency on both sides of a fight.

Think of it this way, you are high on flux or overloaded and within range of a beam? It paints you, and damages you and there isn't a single thing you can do about it besides attempt to get out of the turret arc or out of range. Tactical Lasers deal low enough damage that it is mostly fine, Graviton Beams and Ion Beams are not "general DPS beams", and the High Intensity Laser is a large mount and thus fairly rare in the grand scheme of things. And no Tactical Laser spam kill frigates once their shield is gone quite quickly, not sure why you think that isn't the case.

Anyways the Heavy Mining Laser is *slightly better* than its OP cost in Tactical Lasers against armor when up close but *slightly worse* when far away and about equal at mid range while being much more fair to frigates and fighters in general than a non-sweeping version. And it solves the player agency problem, since it is a beam weapon where range, evasive maneuvers, and the size and shape of the target actually matters! Overloaded or high on flux? You can do something besides eat DPS, and attempt to get out of range / the turret arc. You (and the AI) can simply get farther away, taking less damage! This vaguely resembles an accuracy mechanic for non-beam weapons. And on ships with generous numbers of med energy slots or ones lack the flux stats to use Pulse Lasers comfortably? It is a very viable alternative to using Tactical Lasers allowing you to use said small energy slots for more PD or whatever while offering *roughly* similar performance to two tactical lasers though with caveats and interesting balance mechanics to go with.

You are only looking at the weapons and their uses against the ships most players want to use/fight IE cruisers and capitals... If a weapon is not effective against them it is garbage, but often when it is effective enough against those it simply melts away frigates, fighters, and to a lesser extent destroyers with ease and this is doubly so for beams which the Heavy Mining Laser solves. That is the sort of balance the game is facing right now, because the current meta favors fleets composed of huge strong ships (or fighter spam heh, though this is a different subject), not nimble frigates... And the last thing it needs is weapons that further punish them.


Honestly, I am done discussing this subject. You can theory craft all you want Megas, but I actually have made these things and tested them before and after the sweeping mechanic and know all too well the issue of a "basic DPS beam" on a med slot if it doesn't have below average range, burst fire, or special mechanics or whatever other things etc etc to nerf them vs small targets.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: sotanaht on September 08, 2019, 02:31:28 AM

No. If the flux efficiency of the weapon is worse than the inverse of the flux efficiency of the shield and you are over your standard dissipation then you pay 1 flux for >1 flux damage.

If your flux efficiency vs shields is 1.4 and their shield is .7(the inverse of which is 1.43) then you use 1 flux to do .98 damage. You only "win the flux war" here if you have more flux than what you're shooting at(and sometimes the sum of the things you're shooting at. This contributes to you losing the flux war.

Your flux increases at a rate of (flux generation - dissipation) which is less than flux generation. If you had no dissipation, then what you said would be true. But if you have dissipation, you're not generating the full flux amount in your own ship because some is being dissipated. So you're not paying 'full price' unless you have no spare dissipation.

Yes but what does dissipation have to do with firing over dissipation?

OK lets say you have 1000 flux dissipation. You can fill this in two ways, with heavy blasters or with pulse lasers.

Pulse lasers eat 999 flux dissipation for 909 DPS. Heavy Basters eat 1440 dissipation for 1000 DPS or 2160 dissipation for 1500 DPS.

Who wins the flux war? A: The pulse lasers. Not only are the heavy blasters shooting 440 OVER dissipation for 278 extra DPS(or 1160 over)  -> .694 efficiency which makes this a loser against anything but 1.44 shields or higher but if they fired in time such that they did not fire over dissipation they would do 694 DPS. Which we might note is less than 909. So they lose the flux war either way.

Now you might be saying "DUH" but apparently not because this is the kind of thing that you have to ignore in order to come to the conclusion that you had. This is because these considerations happen when youre fit. And every ship can fill out its flux dissipation with weapons. There are no ships that have excess dissipation to fire all of their weapons and they just don't have enough slots. This means that you can always move to more efficient weapons in more slots in order to keep your flux rate tied to your dissipation rate.

And it means that the purpose of "flux inefficient" weapons like the heavy blaster is not because they're going to win you the flux war, they're not, they're going to make it harder to win. Its because they're going to kill armor faster, when the flux war is already won.
When you factor in the enemies damage to your shield, faster DPS weapons put you at a higher advantage when facing enemies with more efficient weapons themselves.  If you are up against heavy/storm needlers for instance, you aren't going to beat those in terms of efficiency, but if you can do enough damage fast enough they stop firing sooner.

Imagine you are playing with 1 capital vs multiple destroyers.  Combined, those destroyers probably have way more total max flux and dissipation.  They may or may not have efficient weapons, but even inefficent weapons they probably win.  But individually they are pretty fragile.  A quick burst to take one or two out before they do significant damage leaves you taking less damage from the others, and you can probably out-flux 2 or 3 destroyers where you couldn't out-flux 5 of them at once.

Want to guess what the best burst DPS (non-missile) weapon is?  I'll give you a hint, it's not ballistic.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Johnny Cocas on September 08, 2019, 03:30:57 AM
In regards to the original topic, the idea of a medium mounted long range energy weapon must be handled with care as not to be overpowered. Medium weapon mounts are arguably the most commonly used weapon mounts for most ships in order to deal damage, as many don't even have large mounts, so a medium weapon will be something that will be used very frequently.
That being said, ballistic weapons have a lead in terms of range in the medium slots area, with many coming close to the 1k mark, but that doesnt make them overpowered.... The energy mounted weapons that exist in vanilla are quite powerful, dealing a lot of damage and many of them dealing EMP damage at the same time, that makes them extremely dangerous, and so having a shorter range on them means you won't be able to siege enemy ships easily. This is even worse for Beam weapons.... You can dodge a projectile, usually the stronger more damaging projectiles are slow, just so you have a chance to dodge them; beams on the other hand are instant hits, they will stick with you for as long as the ship firing them has enough flux or remains alive. This sort of constant pressure made by beams turns them into annoyance machines that deal pressure but are not quite damaging, otherwise beam spam would be a valid (and top tier) meta, so good nobody would even play mid or low tech ships because beams would be king. The way to deal with beam weapons is to either make them weak (since they are a constant/permanent way of dealing damage, no matter how low it is), or give them something special that makes them unable to fill that role.
The way I see it you have three options when it comes to making a beam weapon:
- Damage
- Range
- Usability
These three make a triangle and you must pick an area of that triangle, you can't have all 3 maxed out. If you want damage you must reduce its range and/or change its usability, by either making the damage specialised (ie. Graviton Beam (Kinetic), HIL (HE), Ion Beam (EMP)), making the weapon fire in bursts (like a lance), or if you want to be creative, make its accuracy unreliable at long ranges.
What this means is that a damage dealing long range energy weapon must have a drawback, a very big one or a number of them, because energy weapons deal equal damage to both shields and hull, this is why most energy mounted mediums have lower range except (once again) the specialised ones.

And I'm not even taking into account the fact that beam weapons are frigate killers... A beam that sticks with the frigate until it explodes? Surely we need one of those as they do not sound overpowered... *laughs in sarcasm*
Overfluxing the enemy with constant beam damage is a big no, sustained fire weapons are not supposed to be able to start firing and maul down the enemy to pieces, sustained fire weapons are supposed to maintain a constant pressure on the enemy and force it to keep some range or vent, and those are the ones that usually deal less damage even though they have higher ranges (ie. graviton beam). No, a couple of graviton beams won't be able to force the enemy to vent or overflux, and if they did, they would be overpowered no matter how you see it.

But what about the tac lasers?
Well, tbh I can't decide where to put them in the range of under-to-overpowered, but I use them frequently on most of my ships and they always perform as expected: Long range annoyances that deal constant damage. Are they OP? Maybe a little bit, but there are so many other reliable ways to deal damage to an enemy ship that I often remove them completely and only install them on support ships to maintain the pressure on the enemy and will rather equip PD weapons on the small mounts for all other ships. The tac laser is an energy mounted energy damage weapon, it is not a specialised weapon and yet it has 1k range, as a small weapon... A medium mounted tac laser with medium mount stats would be a nightmare, nothing would ever come close to a ship equipped with 4 of those and a fleet of ships with that sort of weapon would be hand down unbeatable, beam weapons can not have long range and energy damage on the same sentence, the tac laser is the exception because the damage is so low it may be somewhat neglectable, but from medium mounts and up you simply can't do it, just as you can't make a small mounted beam with twice the power of the tac laser... If the tac laser is on the edge of being OP anything over it is well, over that line heh.

And like some people have mentioned before, people may not even be considering the fact that a weapon that is good agaisnt capitals and cruisers will murder frigates and destroyers, but if it can't reliably overflux or damage large ships it is considered to be a bad weapon. This is wrong on so many levels, and this happens due to the current game's meta, favouring large hulking ships in a fleet that can take hits while murdering everything else. If a weapon can damage a capital ship, it will easily kill a frigate, so making more medium mounted energy weapons that can easily outrange the low range burst weapons that frigates and destroyers may be equipping in order to deal with the capitals is not the ideal way to go, and will further push the game into the capital ship meta we currently have...

Games like Battlestar Galactica Online have a feature that has always triggered me to some extent... Basically, ships have a "dodge" stat, meaning a ship has a chance of completely dodging an incoming projectile given the stat is high enough and/or the enemy has no weapon accuracy stat. But the games are different, in BSGO you simply click the target and fire, all projectiles follow the enemy regardless the direction, but here's the thing.... In Starsector you can't simply click and fire, you have to aim, shoot, and hope the enemy doesn't dodge the projectile... That is, unless you are using a beam weapon... And that is my point, you can't have high damage beam weapons with high range as well, they will be OP and it doesn't matter what people may say. The fact is that is you create a long range energy beam weapon EVERYBODY will start using them because all other weapons will start to be overwhelmed by it, fighters, frigates and to some extend, destroyers as well, will all disappear from the battles because they won't be able to deal enough damage to the enemy before they all die, that is if they can even reach the enemy... The game would become dull and boring, it would turn into a simple DPS/flux battle to see which fleet has the most beams and can fire them more effectively...

TL:DR: Long range medium beams with energy damage get a massive no if they are simply a resized tac laser...
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 08, 2019, 04:11:54 AM
@Johnny Cocas
Those are some pretty good arguments and you're right, that would be kinda crazy vs frigates. But you completely ignored that beam weapons have stats such as turn rate and flux cost. Just becuase people say "bigger tac laser basically" it doesn't mean it should be fast and low flux cost. Also your big part of the post assumed that every single ship would have those beams and that they would crush anything. That's simply not true. Beam spam works if you have overwhelming numbers, but in campaign it's the opposite. It's easy to counter beam spam, unless the opposing fleet is full of weak frigates and fighters.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Johnny Cocas on September 08, 2019, 05:43:22 AM
@Johnny Cocas
Those are some pretty good arguments and you're right, that would be kinda crazy vs frigates. But you completely ignored that beam weapons have stats such as turn rate and flux cost. Just becuase people say "bigger tac laser basically" it doesn't mean it should be fast and low flux cost. Also your big part of the post assumed that every single ship would have those beams and that they would crush anything. That's simply not true. Beam spam works if you have overwhelming numbers, but in campaign it's the opposite. It's easy to counter beam spam, unless the opposing fleet is full of weak frigates and fighters.

Allow me to disagree, and here's why...
- A beam with 1k range or more has a large enough range for it to be able to still turn and manage to hit the enemy ship, even if it has a low turning rate.
- There's always the ship turning speed to compensate for low weapon turning rate.
- You don't need an entire fleet to beam spam a long range beam because you wouldn't even need that many of them to be effective.
- How do you counter a beam spam of long range Energy damage beams? Mind you I'm talking about the hypothetical medium sized beam.
- Having this hypothetical beam weapon with a high enough flux cost for it to be "balanced" would render it unusable and useless, thus not even justifying the need for one or its existance.
- a single ship with a HIL can kill you if you down your shields if you are on a destroyer or anything smaller than that, because that is a large HE damage beam, now imagine a single ship with two or three beams that deal energy damage... It won't care if you have your shields up or not, it will simply fire away and kill both your shields and then the hull. Sure, it generates soft flux, but it generates flux, and it wouldn't be a low amount of it!
- I assume many ships will use the beam because people use whatever weapon is good, whatever weapon performs as the player wants. Will you use a flak cannon to murder capitals? I bet you won't, and the reason is the weapon is not effective doing that job. Beams, on the other hand, unless they are lances and/or fire in bursts, are effective against everything, the only thing stopping people from using anything but beams on all high-tech ships is that beams are situational right now, they either deal kinetic, HE or EMP damage (not considering the small beams) and thus are not effective to destroy an enemy ship on their own, they need something else to strip the shields and/or armor first, and that is why there are burst energy weapons or energy projectile weapons, and of course, they have lower range because of the fact that they are effective against everything. You create an energy damage medium beam that acts as an enlargened tac laser and I can bet whatever you want that it WILL be used, abused, stacked, spammed, and it will melt everything in their path 100% of the times, it may very well even kill low tech ships and factinos completely, as they will either be murdered by them or not used because there are better things to use...
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 08, 2019, 09:02:15 AM
@ MesoTroniK:  It is not all theory-crafting.  I try some of this stuff in battles.  For beams, not exactly a medium double tactical laser, but I tried the six tactical lasers with Eagle.  (Basically the three medium beams without supplimental PD.)  Not terribly impressed.  Decent anti-armor, but not powerful enough to steamroll fights, and the flux load was not insignificant.  I would not expect a new 200 damage/flux, and even 150 is pushing it, due to better anti-armor than 2x75 (and tougher flux load), assuming continuous beam.  Meanwhile, something like phase lance has too much flux load (and very likely too effective if it had 1000 range out-of-the-box).  Does not help that some other things you consider overpowered, I consider perfectly fine or at least not unbalanced enough to be a problem.  Simply put, we will disagree on some of this stuff.


I tried some of the other medium energy weapons, namely heavy burst laser, phase lance, and pulse laser.

Heavy burst laser is no good for assault unless I control them manually.  It prioritizes missile-defense as expected.  My only problem with it is horrible efficiency compared to the smaller burst PD.  It also barely has more damage than burst PD, so the only good reason to take this is more range, but that is real corner-case.  Usually, it is better to put normal burst PD and save OP, unless the ship cannot, like Aurora with that rear synergy.

Tried Phase Lance and Pulse Laser as non-missile PD (anti-fighter/anti-frigate) on Eagle.  Both are similar enough in effectiveness.  Phase Lance is a bit better only because its flux load is not as high.  Still, flux load is a bit high on Phase Lance.  (Efficiency is not good at 1.2.)  If Phase Lance had better efficiency and no other changes, it could have a real niche as alternative PD.  Phase Lance needs something more to set it further apart from Pulse Laser.

Also your big part of the post assumed that every single ship would have those beams and that they would crush anything. That's simply not true. Beam spam works if you have overwhelming numbers, but in campaign it's the opposite. It's easy to counter beam spam, unless the opposing fleet is full of weak frigates and fighters.
Agreed.

As for Johnny's points...

Quote
In regards to the original topic, the idea of a medium mounted long range energy weapon must be handled with care as not to be overpowered. Medium weapon mounts are arguably the most commonly used weapon mounts for most ships in order to deal damage, as many don't even have large mounts, so a medium weapon will be something that will be used very frequently.
In that case, that will go mostly to the short-ranged hard-flux, high damage, or EMP weapons for the high-tech ships.  Some are fine due to mounts that can use kinetics or special systems that can bypass shields, but others need Sabot spam, except Wolf who is screwed.

On midline ships, if my ship is short on OP, missiles are the first thing to go, closely followed by energy mounts not needed for PD.  On Conquest, the medium energy mount is either empty or has more burst PD.  On Sunder, if I use tachyon lance or plasma cannon, the energy mounts are empty because none of the weapons are good enough, and I need the OP to support the heavy weapon plus possible railguns.

Beams are perfectly accurate, but those continuous beams smaller than heavy are slow frigate killers.  Painfully slow if the frigate is shielded, and none of the beams are Graviton (but then Graviton will not crack armor fast enough).  An Eagle with six tac lasers against a group of frigates?  Eagle may kill one frigate, then needs to shake off the other four before they swarm and kill it.  Easier said than done.  I even tried them against fighters.  They do not kill as fast as shorter-ranged pulse lasers or phase lance.

Quote
- A beam with 1k range or more has a large enough range for it to be able to still turn and manage to hit the enemy ship, even if it has a low turning rate.
- There's always the ship turning speed to compensate for low weapon turning rate.
Ship turning speed can interfere with beam use.  If the weapon turns slowly enough, it cannot offset the ship's speed.  Tactical laser is fast, but not so fast as to always keep up with a fast turning ship.  I would expect a medium beam having Medium speed, unless it is a PD beam.  For a tactical laser to do its work, the ship should be as steady as possible (i.e., no sudden turns).

Quote
- You don't need an entire fleet to beam spam a long range beam because you wouldn't even need that many of them to be effective.
That is the point.  Instead of needing six or more tactical lasers just to burn a hole through armor and do more than tickle hull of one ship, you only need about three.  Six tactical lasers may be enough for anti-shield against frigates, but if I was interested in that, I would either get Graviton Beams instead or shoot them with hard-flux ballistics (or spam Sabots in case of high-tech ships).

Quote
- a single ship with a HIL can kill you if you down your shields if you are on a destroyer or anything smaller than that, because that is a large HE damage beam, now imagine a single ship with two or three beams that deal energy damage... It won't care if you have your shields up or not, it will simply fire away and kill both your shields and then the hull. Sure, it generates soft flux, but it generates flux, and it wouldn't be a low amount of it!
Low enough to impractical.
Energy damage is not all that it is cracked up to be.  Not as long as the most difficult and rewarding fights are against Ordos with Radiants in them.  (Nearly anything else is weaker than full Ordos.)  It can be useful as anti-armor in a pinch, but unless it is overwhelming like plasma cannon, ships are better off with mostly kinetics plus enough anti-armor of some kind.  For some high-tech ships like Shrike and Aurora, that probably means Sabots and Expanded Missile Racks.  Wolf is out of luck.

Quote
Beams, on the other hand, unless they are lances and/or fire in bursts, are effective against everything, the only thing stopping people from using anything but beams on all high-tech ships is that beams are situational right now...
The reason why I do not use beams on high-tech ships for non-PD purposes is they have low DPS and deal only soft flux, and most ships cannot fire enough to overcome dissipation.  The ships I am mostly likely to use beams as assault weapons are midline, and usually to compliment ballistics.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Johnny Cocas on September 08, 2019, 11:06:36 AM
@ MesoTroniK:  It is not all theory-crafting.  I try some of this stuff in battles.  For beams, not exactly a medium double tactical laser, but I tried the six tactical lasers with Eagle.  (Basically the three medium beams without supplimental PD.)  Not terribly impressed.  Decent anti-armor, but not powerful enough to steamroll fights, and the flux load was not insignificant.  I would not expect a new 200 damage/flux, and even 150 is pushing it, due to better anti-armor than 2x75 (and tougher flux load), assuming continuous beam.  Meanwhile, something like phase lance has too much flux load (and very likely too effective if it had 1000 range out-of-the-box).  Does not help that some other things you consider overpowered, I consider perfectly fine or at least not unbalanced enough to be a problem.  Simply put, we will disagree on some of this stuff.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but MesoTroniK is right, and I agree with many (if not all) of the things he said in regards to balancing and game mechanics. I'd even reach as far as to tell you that you are yet another one of those players who would like to see a niche weapon boosted or simply wants weapons to be more powerful, but that is not how things work.... The game has a certain weapon balance and (most) modders try to add new content that is on-par with vanilla SS in terms of balance, otherwise faction mods would be an arms race to see who can make the most powerful gun (as in, the one with the highest stats). It is by no accident that the Heavy Mining Laser has been tweaked the way it was, always remember that.

Quote from: Grievous69
Also your big part of the post assumed that every single ship would have those beams and that they would crush anything. That's simply not true. Beam spam works if you have overwhelming numbers, but in campaign it's the opposite. It's easy to counter beam spam, unless the opposing fleet is full of weak frigates and fighters.
Agreed.

Alright, then answer me this as well:
Quote
- How do you counter a beam spam of long range Energy damage beams? Mind you I'm talking about the hypothetical medium sized beam.

As for Johnny's points...

Ohhh boy I feel like this is going to be good from that sentence alone heh ::)

In that case, that will go mostly to the short-ranged hard-flux, high damage, or EMP weapons for the high-tech ships.  Some are fine due to mounts that can use kinetics or special systems that can bypass shields, but others need Sabot spam, except Wolf who is screwed.

On midline ships, if my ship is short on OP, missiles are the first thing to go, closely followed by energy mounts not needed for PD.  On Conquest, the medium energy mount is either empty or has more burst PD.  On Sunder, if I use tachyon lance or plasma cannon, the energy mounts are empty because none of the weapons are good enough, and I need the OP to support the heavy weapon plus possible railguns.

You can equip whatever you want on your ships, I don't know what it has to do with what I said but ok...

Quote
Beams are perfectly accurate, but those continuous beams smaller than heavy are slow frigate killers.  Painfully slow if the frigate is shielded, and none of the beams are Graviton (but then Graviton will not crack armor fast enough).  An Eagle with six tac lasers against a group of frigates?  Eagle may kill one frigate, then needs to shake off the other four before they swarm and kill it.  Easier said than done.  I even tried them against fighters.  They do not kill as fast as shorter-ranged pulse lasers or phase lance.

First, Graviton Beams were never made to crack armor;
Second, tac lasers were never made to be used as main weapons meant to destroy enemy ships, they are meant to put some constant pressure on the enemy, just like a medium energy damage beam weapon could be used for, but if you want a single (or a pair of) continuous damage beam to be used as a main damage dealing tool capable of destroying an enemy ship you are entering the "overpowered" area of weapon balancing. The fact you can destroy a frigate with 6 tac lasers is enough to support my theory, because those can be massed quite easily as "support" weapons on all of the fleet's cruisers and capitals and use them to keep all frigates at bay.

Quote
Ship turning speed can interfere with beam use.  If the weapon turns slowly enough, it cannot offset the ship's speed.  Tactical laser is fast, but not so fast as to always keep up with a fast turning ship.  I would expect a medium beam having Medium speed, unless it is a PD beam.  For a tactical laser to do its work, the ship should be as steady as possible (i.e., no sudden turns).

Yes, that is quite obvious, but you do know the beam will slow its turning when firing, right? If it didn't, the hypothetical medium beam I was discussing would be even more overpowered as it would be able to keep track of the enemy ships.
And again, if a weapon turns so slowly it is basically a stationary weapon, why even have it? It won't be fun to use, it won't be functional, and will only really have a use as a hardpoint for frigates or something similar... It is not even worth having such a weapon...

Quote
That is the point.  Instead of needing six or more tactical lasers just to burn a hole through armor and do more than tickle hull of one ship, you only need about three.  Six tactical lasers may be enough for anti-shield against frigates, but if I was interested in that, I would either get Graviton Beams instead or shoot them with hard-flux ballistics (or spam Sabots in case of high-tech ships).

I don't think you are understanding my point... I don't want a strong long range beam, the fact that I wouldn't even need that many of them in a fleet for them to wreak havoc is the main reason they are already strong enough. Personally, I favor specialised weaponry over all-purpose weapons, stuff that either deals Kinetic or HE damage will always be better regarded by me than a weapon that deals Energy damage because the specialised ones are fun, a lot more fun in fact, but the important thing to take note here is that tac lasers should not be used as a main damage dealing weapon, nor expected to be, and yet you use them as defense to justify the existance of a medium sized version of them...

Quote
Low enough to impractical.
Energy damage is not all that it is cracked up to be.  Not as long as the most difficult and rewarding fights are against Ordos with Radiants in them.  (Nearly anything else is weaker than full Ordos.)  It can be useful as anti-armor in a pinch, but unless it is overwhelming like plasma cannon, ships are better off with mostly kinetics plus enough anti-armor of some kind.  For some high-tech ships like Shrike and Aurora, that probably means Sabots and Expanded Missile Racks.  Wolf is out of luck.

Of course, I don't want a beam weapon that generates enough soft flux fast enough for it to render all weapons useless, and to make non-beam weapons useless all you had to do would be to make beams as strong as ballistic weapons. Why? Point and shoot, no brain needed, guarenteed results. If you want anti-armor as a high-tech faction you use burst weapons or weapons that fire projectiles, they have the damage to strip both the armor and the shields because they deal Energy damage, and again, that is why they have lower range.

Quote
The reason why I do not use beams on high-tech ships for non-PD purposes is they have low DPS and deal only soft flux, and most ships cannot fire enough to overcome dissipation.  The ships I am mostly likely to use beams as assault weapons are midline, and usually to compliment ballistics.

Precisely, it forces you to use a multitude of weapons to fulfill all roles, and that is exactly what you should want for this game. The moment you have a single beam weapon that can perform all roles equally you have a beam that rises above all other weapons, beam or not, in terms of usability and desirability, and no other weapon will ever be used. I don't want that, and most of the SS community doesn't want that either. Your opinion appears to be the opposite though, and that makes it much harder to speak about weapon balancing with you :P
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 08, 2019, 11:46:07 AM
When you factor in the enemies damage to your shield, faster DPS weapons put you at a higher advantage when facing enemies with more efficient weapons themselves.  If you are up against heavy/storm needlers for instance, you aren't going to beat those in terms of efficiency, but if you can do enough damage fast enough they stop firing sooner.
Not if their flux efficiency is worse than the targets shield efficiency. You will flux out faster if you fire inefficiently over your capacity compared to if you had not.

Destroyers v capitals is one situation that can reverse this but even then this generally falls for the destroyers. If you flux up to push one away youre now high on flux with two shooters closing in.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Limitless on September 08, 2019, 02:40:14 PM
I mentioned in my post that I think the primary purpose of a beam weapon is shield pressure, with the next priority being poke damage. Phase lance is a strike weapon, causing overloads or stipping armour. Ion beam is special and disables ships.

While a medium beam that does 150 dps might be nice, I'd much rather have a 600 range IR Blaster or a more efficient version of a pulse laser that does a touch less damage.

The way things are, Ballistic weapons will always be superior in that they are way more efficient (doubly so when firing on their intended target) AND they can outrange energy weapons, so all energy weapons have is damage, and they don't have enough to feel powerful imo
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 08, 2019, 02:41:56 PM
Quote
It is by no accident that the Heavy Mining Laser has been tweaked the way it was, always remember that.
Yes, and it makes sense from a lore perspective, but as a gold standard or paragon of balance for all other beams to remember, I disagree with that.

Quote
I don't think you are understanding my point... I don't want a strong long range beam, the fact that I wouldn't even need that many of them in a fleet for them to wreak havoc is the main reason they are already strong enough. Personally, I favor specialised weaponry over all-purpose weapons, stuff that either deals Kinetic or HE damage will always be better regarded by me than a weapon that deals Energy damage because the specialised ones are fun, a lot more fun in fact, but the important thing to take note here is that tac lasers should not be used as a main damage dealing weapon, nor expected to be, and yet you use them as defense to justify the existance of a medium sized version of them...
I do not think an upgraded tac laser or whatever form it takes is all-purpose, just anti-armor/anti-hull.  If I want shield pressure, there is graviton.  If I want... weird stuff, ion beam.  If I want a simple damage beam to attack the enemy from afar while he is vulnerable, there is nothing... except tactical laser, which is too weak on a medium.  (Few ships with many mounts can make it work, but it is sub-optimal compared to other options.)  A medium damage-only beam is not all-purpose, unless damage is too high.  An all-purpose beam would be something that deal 200+ damage per second.  Even then, the flux load would probably be as high as ion beam or phase lance, which will probably make it kind of specialized because the flux load is too high to comfortably support more than few.

Some think having a halfway between Tactical Laser and HIL in a medium is overpowered.  I am not convinced that it is too powerful.  It is overpowered if compared to tactical laser, which is to be expected.  Is it too powerful to be a game-breaker, I do not think so (provided damage is not too high) even if others do.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 08, 2019, 03:11:07 PM
We already had Phase Beam in past (Which became Phase Lance later). It had same range as Tac laser at the time, I think 800, and was exactly the upscaled Tac.

It was decent with Needlers, but not really overpowered (then again, fighters were minor annoyance at most at that time, so being good against them was not important).

Problem with this kind of weapons setup is that it is very prone to wasting flux. In kinetic ballistic + energy beams combo you do NOT produce enough soft flux to overpower enemy dissipation most of the time.
- If enemy can fire back distance-wise and has better than 1.0 shield firing them only loses you the flux war (unless you are just leveraging overall pool/dissipation advantage).
- If enemy doesn't have long range weapons and has only hard flux, their dissipation is already countered by just keeping shield up, firing insufficient beams is just wasting your flux.

So you need to sync your fire with kinetic projectile impacts, to exploit shield drop windows. AI wasn't good at this, so this kind of builds didn't work for it. And for player it was quite micro-intensive, yet not particularly fast way to kill things.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on September 08, 2019, 03:38:36 PM
You cannot balance anything in a vacuum. Energy weapons are not balanced against ballistic weapons; complete ships are balanced against complete ships. Weapons must be balanced with consideration to the ships that they are mounted on. High tech ships are highly mobile and have very good flux stats; if they had weapons with the same range and efficiency as ballistics, they could simply disengage from any fight they can't win. Imagine an Aurora with the same range as a Dominator. The Aurora could trade fire with the Dominator at maximum range, back off slightly to dissipate more flux than the Dominator due to its better flux stats, then re-engage and repeat until the Dominator dies with no risk or chance of losing. This is why hard-flux energy weapons have short range and poor efficiency.

However, having shorter range means that the amount of time you have to fire on your target is also shorter. The Aurora has to dive into longer ranged weaponry, get shots on target, then back off while potentially still taking fire. This is why hard-flux energy weapons have high DPS and/or high burst damage; they need it to make the most of the short engagement times inherent to the ships they're mounted on, as well as to help compensate for the poor efficiency. If hard-flux energy weapons need to be buffed (they don't), they should be given higher DPS or higher burst damage, not longer range or better efficiency.

Not all energy mounts are on high-tech ships. Mid-tech ships can also mount energy weaponry, and this is where the beams you dismiss as useless find their niche. Mid-tech gun platforms absolutely love the Ion Beam, because they can combine it with similarly ranged kinetic ballistics and cripple their opponents from incredibly long distances. The High Intensity Laser combines well on a fleet level with previously mentioned mid-tech gun platforms, as it forces shields up to take heavy kinetic bursts in a way that cannot be shield-flickered. A Hellbore shot can be caught with a quick shield flicker, while the kinetic burst is taken on armor. Not so with the HIL; it's a constant stream of armor-chewing death. There are multiple reasons why the Paragon is the only vanilla ship that can combine large energies and medium ballistics, and the HIL is one of them. A HIL Sunder or two mixed into a group of heavy-kinetic Hammerheads or Falcons is extremely hard to deal with when they're all moving together. A Conquest with a large energy would be terrifying and overpowered, just because it could provide both HIL and kinetic burst on its own.

You are correct that small energy weapons are not good outside of specialized roles, but I think that's mostly fine. The only ship that is really hurt by this is the Scarab; every other ship that can mount small energies can also mount either similarly sized ballistics, or larger energy weapons. This is mostly a problem with the Scarab not having high enough numbers, not with small energy weapons.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 08, 2019, 05:12:54 PM
@ TaLaR:  Phase Beam had 700 range, just 100 above Pulse Laser's 600.  (Pulse Laser was only about 225 DPS before flux supercharge.)  It also had EMP damage (low and worthless), costs 12 OP, and efficiency may have been worse than Tactical Laser.  It was continuous instead of burst.  Old Phase Beam was worthless for pressuring shields.  Graviton Beam did that better.  Tactical Laser either somewhere between 600 and 800 range at the time too.  (Do not remember exact range.)  Also back then, Ion Cannon had 600 range (and IR pulse laser only had 100 DPS and 500 range).

Back then, there was no CR, and kiting until beams slowly grind down weaker ships was an option.  Also, ballistics had ammo like missiles.

Quote
However, having shorter range means that the amount of time you have to fire on your target is also shorter. The Aurora has to dive into longer ranged weaponry, get shots on target, then back off while potentially still taking fire. This is why hard-flux energy weapons have high DPS and/or high burst damage; they need it to make the most of the short engagement times inherent to the ships they're mounted on, as well as to help compensate for the poor efficiency. If hard-flux energy weapons need to be buffed (they don't), they should be given higher DPS or higher burst damage, not longer range or better efficiency.
Unfortunately, high-tech ships' flux stats are not that much better than other ships, and weapons smaller than heavy are so inefficient that high-tech ships without ballistics need to either spam sabots to make up for inefficient weapons or spend a lot of OP getting all of the flux and shield hullmods to make energy weapons usable enough, and doing the latter will probably means gutting the ship's weapon loadout because all of that OP has to come from somewhere.  Doing the former probably means getting Expanded Missile Racks to have enough Sabots to paralyze then kill few ships.  It also does not help that the ships seem to be priced as if used by a skilled player instead of AI.  AI does dumb things and probably needs an Aggressive officer (or Eliminate) to behave properly.

Quote
A Conquest with a large energy would be terrifying and overpowered, just because it could provide both HIL and kinetic burst on its own.
Nevermind that!  How about Tachyon Lance instead?  That would be partially unblockable with the kinetics Conquest can pump out.  This is one of the tricks Prometheus 2 can do, with Heavy Autocannons and lances, and it is quite effective for a sub-par capital.  I do not think four lance Paragon would be so great without HVDs or Heavy Needler putting hard flux on shields from long range (to enable lances to shield pierce) in a pinch.

Quote
You are correct that small energy weapons are not good outside of specialized roles, but I think that's mostly fine. The only ship that is really hurt by this is the Scarab; every other ship that can mount small energies can also mount either similarly sized ballistics, or larger energy weapons. This is mostly a problem with the Scarab not having high enough numbers, not with small energy weapons.
The biggest problem with Scarab is dissipation.  Once Temporal Shell is on, it has enough flux left to support one or two IR Pulse Lasers (or one IR and one Ion Cannon).  Scarab may be able to use short-range weapons well with its system, just not enough of them.  Does dissipation slow down when time shift is active?  If so, maybe dissipation can be sped up to offset the time shift, or flux cost reduced like for Accelerated Ammo Feeder.

Wolf is also kind of hurt because its dissipation means it can only use beams comfortably in its medium mount unless it spends nearly everything in vents and hullmods.  Wolf with Pulse Laser, two PD beams, and the rest in vents and hullmods is kind of stupid.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 08, 2019, 10:15:37 PM
@Megas

Phase beam:
Nah, as I said, I was using it in sync with Needler salvos. That way it was competitive enough loadout for Medusa/Falcon/Eagle. Though annoying to set up since you needed to:
- start firing alternating needlers manually
- switch to auto to maintain firing pattern (repeat 1&2 every time you engage anything, since autofire ignores alternating mode)
- manually time phase beam attacks to sync with Needler-induced shield drops.

Trying to actually overpressure shields with Phase beams was always a bad idea.

Scarab:
I think Tempo Shell does nothing to flux dissipation (but since you are in faster time, you effectively get advantage).

For a 8 DP ship Scarab is a huge disappointment, squeezing enough use out it's system is tricky and doable only for player. Even then Scarab's system drains CR at alarming rate without bringing nearly as many advantages as phase cloak.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 08, 2019, 11:21:51 PM
Unfortunately, high-tech ships' flux stats are not that much better than other ships, and weapons smaller than heavy are so inefficient that high-tech ships without ballistics need to either spam sabots to make up for inefficient weapons or spend a lot of OP getting all of the flux and shield hullmods to make energy weapons usable enough, and doing the latter will probably means gutting the ship's weapon loadout because all of that OP has to come from somewhere.  Doing the former probably means getting Expanded Missile Racks to have enough Sabots to paralyze then kill few ships.  It also does not help that the ships seem to be priced as if used by a skilled player instead of AI.  AI does dumb things and probably needs an Aggressive officer (or Eliminate) to behave properly

Let me get this straight. High tech ships dont have enough flux to be competitive unless they spend a bunch of OP on flux enhancing skills, but high tech weapons use too much flux in order to fire a full compliment....

The Medusa has 400 base flux and 120 cost shield. This gives it a post shield flux of 280. 480 with max vents. 540 with front shield emitter or stabalized shields.  And 580 with loadout 2.... 2 pulse lasers for 20 OP use 666 flux/second.

A Hammerhead has 250 flux dissipation and 100 shield. So it has 150 flux dissipation. 350 with max vents 390 with loadout design 2 and 440 with stabilized shields.  2 railguns and 2 heavy mortars cost 24 OP and use 660 flux/second. Better weapons cost even more OP and you still need 2 of each to use up your flux budget. Want needlers? Gotta have 4 more OP. Now youre at 28. Arbalests and LAG? 26 OP (and then you lose your range advantage) 

This means the medusa has 80% more base flux, 87% more post shield base flux, 37% more post shield max vent flux and 31% more flux in the worst case scenario. It also has a 6,000 capacity .6 shield compared to a 5000 capacity .8 shield for a total of 60% more shield capacity.

The only way you get out of this with more OP is if you dont fit stabalized shields and use the cheapest combo of reasonable weapons... 2x rail, 2x heavy mortar put you ahead by 2 OP. But now the Medusa is ahead by 49% dissipation.

Now the hammerhead still does better idealized shield DPS than the Medusa (especially when its active is on) but not by a lot and i am not sure that real world damage doesnt favor the more accurate and faster projectile pulse lasers.

Edit: Only the wolf is really left out in terms of flux versus its low/mid line equivalents. Its got less post shield flux than the lasher. The aurora has 800/400 compared to the eagles 525/315. The Apogee is kinda left in the cold but it also kinda should be given its strength last patch. The shrike is a tad bit under fluxed but it still has more than a hammerhead before and after shields and that medium missile mount is a gamechanger.

Basically the royal you needs to stop seeing the high flux usage on energy weapons and the high shield costs on high tech ships as a curse and start seeing them as a blessing.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2019, 07:43:06 AM
Quote
Let me get this straight. High tech ships dont have enough flux to be competitive unless they spend a bunch of OP on flux enhancing skills, but high tech weapons use too much flux in order to fire a full compliment....
That's right, at least the typical one with high mobility, inability to use ballistics, and sometimes overpriced.  Whenever I try less optimized loadouts, I cannot win the flux war, or I win by a slim margin and cannot finish off the enemy (or inflict enough damage to break a stalemate condition).  This is not always one-on-one combat, but one against group.  Given their inflated costs (for some), they need to punch above their weight, but they do not if not built right.  Then there is the matter of AI, if player wants to pass it off AI while he grabs another ship.  For AI to use the ships, it should be close to flux neutral, if it has no dirty tricks to stack the deck.

Medusa can get away with less due to being able to use kinetic ballistics.  It is one of those ships where I do not need to get sabots (not that it can get enough to last long enough, much like Wolf) or ultra specialize in flux.

Apogee is definitely atypical.  It can use a heavy weapon (and a heavy missile), and it has other goodies.  At its best, it punches like a 20 or 22 DP cruiser for the low cost of 18 DP.

Normal Shrike needs that medium missile mount.  That is a textbook example of Sabot (Pod) and Expanded Missile Racks because it does not have any other good option for assault.  For its cheap cost and frigate-like design, it works.  Shrike (P) can work like a half Medusa with its hybrid, and less OP makes Expanded Missile Racks a tough pill to swallow.

Quote
Basically the royal you needs to stop seeing the high flux usage on energy weapons and the high shield costs on high tech ships as a curse and start seeing them as a blessing.
Why?  Why should bad things be a blessing?  High flux use hurts all ships, not just high-tech, although high-tech often lacks ballistic mounts for better weapons.  Some high-tech can take the costs, but not all, and definitely not most midline (although midline can use ballistics instead).  Why should I need to pump up flux on energy users while I do not need to for most ballistic users?
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 10:37:44 AM
Wolf, +1
Tempest, +4
Omen, +2
Shrike, -2
Medusa,+2
Apogee, -4
Aurora,+8
Odyssey, +5
Paragon,+20

So youre talking about only the aurora and wolf then? Because you excepted every other ship as working just fine... except the odyssey which is the strongest players ship in the game and the paragon... which I dont think anyone has an issue with.

Well you didn’t except the shrike but its cheaper than the hammerhead
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 09, 2019, 12:02:23 PM
      In practice, I've found Wolf wanting indeed. The difference between it and Lasher is not big. Lasher has 90% of the Wolf's flux stats, while being able to use absurdly more efficient weapons. It can't do much before it has to disengage. Omen and Tempest have similar (better than Wolf's!) flux stats, even though Omen doesn't need nearly as much of it (EMP emitter is its main gun, which uses 500 flux to deal certainly more than 500, maybe even more than 1000 damage, giving it excellent efficiency! And without spamming it, there's still 0.6 shields) and Tempest has two flux-free IR lasers and HEF to help it win flux wars. And Wolf is good at staying alive and that's it.
      Shrike, while fast, has to play around either making its medium missile do the shield breaking, or the other way around. Pirate version is better off, but just because it can mount a single better gun. It has decent defensive stats, but can't bite, exact opposite of its 8 maintenance competitor, Tempest. With the exception that Tempest is good defensively, too.
      Aurora, I'm not sure if it's good enough for its cost, or not. I typically use it as a missile cruiser, with missiles in question being sabots, and while it's great for bullying smaller ships, it typically has to dump all the missiles to tackle same size opponents or even bigger. I should take it for some AI testing, since borderline all of my experience with it is with my own piloting, but unfortunately I'm very short on time currently and I have no idea when will that happen. Odyssey is in a similar spot, since... Well, actually, it's absurdly rare and I have no idea how competitive it is lately, in comparison to Conquest. I liked the ship a lot, once, but carrier rework made flying it busier than previously.
      I dread giving high-tech ships to the AI. It can't do as well as I do, and they are too much fun to let AI accidentally break them.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 12:52:22 PM
Not only is the wolf only marginally better than the lasher but the lasher isnt even that good on flux stats.

The centurion has 175/105. Higher base, post shield base, and more value from stabs. The brawler is even better at 200/120!

The hyperion and tempest are significant advantages over all of them at 280/112 (hyperion) and 225/180 (tempest).

The omen is a out the same at 200/140 (still better than every mid tech ship).

Oh inhad forgotten the scarab. Its weak at 150/90. Though i am uncertain how much the temporal shell makes up for it. Since shell up youre effectively 450/270.

But we might notice that these are not problems with energy weapons these are problems with like... 2 frigates maybe.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 09, 2019, 01:22:41 PM
Wolf, +1
Tempest, +4
Omen, +2
Shrike, -2
Medusa,+2
Apogee, -4
Aurora,+8
Odyssey, +5
Paragon,+20
Random numbers are random? Explain please.

Apogee is definitely atypical.  It can use a heavy weapon (and a heavy missile), and it has other goodies.  At its best, it punches like a 20 or 22 DP cruiser for the low cost of 18 DP.
At worse it dies to a couple of frigates as it can't ward off frigates as easily as other cruisers can.

In practice, I've found Wolf wanting indeed. The difference between it and Lasher is not big. Lasher has 90% of the Wolf's flux stats, while being able to use absurdly more efficient weapons. It can't do much before it has to disengage. Omen and Tempest have similar (better than Wolf's!) flux stats, even though Omen doesn't need nearly as much of it (EMP emitter is its main gun, which uses 500 flux to deal certainly more than 500, maybe even more than 1000 damage, giving it excellent efficiency! And without spamming it, there's still 0.6 shields) and Tempest has two flux-free IR lasers and HEF to help it win flux wars. And Wolf is good at staying alive and that's it.
Wolf is more useful than Lasher, and for longer. The phase system helps. Sometimes stats don't tell the whole story.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SafariJohn on September 09, 2019, 01:27:34 PM
DP adjustment relative to baselines. 4-10-22-40, looks like.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 01:27:55 PM
Apologies, we were talking “cost” so i listed marginal DP cost with the comparable midline ship. I should have been more flear about what i was referencing. Lasher/centurion/brawler = 4, wolf costs 5 so its +1. hammerhead = 10 and shrike = 8 so shrike is -2. And so on and so forth. Eagle and conquest/onslaught were used for cruisers/capitals.

You could use a domi for cruisers if you wanted but the dominator has even worse flux stats than an eagle and so high tech ships look a LOT better than it in the flux department
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 09, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
I see thanks for the quick replies. But why mention it compared to baseline? For instance my "baseline" for frigates is 5. If you are talking about flux capacity or dissapitation, a more useful metric would be flux / DP would it not?
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2019, 01:35:48 PM
Omen seems built for support.  I tried to use it as an assault ship long ago when skills were stronger, but it is too awkward.  It could be done, just... awkward.  No point trying to force Omen into a typical beatstick.  It would be like trying to force Monitor to do anything beyond being a meat shield.

Tempest seems okay.  It can support a medium weapon, or at least escape.  With speed and drones, seems worth its price.

Scarab does not pull its weight.  It used to during 0.7.2, but not anymore.  Effectively, it is probably a 5 or 6 DP ship.  Temporal Shell does not help enough.  After using it, it can only use one or two small guns.  More than that and flux will build up to max before the shell times out.  (Venting breaks the shell.)  Similar problem of Accelerated Ammo Feeder before it got half flux cost discount.

Hyperion is too expensive.  By the time I kill a cruiser, PPT expires and it is time to retreat.  Just one step away from being a glass sword, without the power.  AI cannot use it effectively.  As it is, maybe worth 12 DP.

I kind of wish Shrike and Shrike (P) merged into one ship.  (Pirates have few other ships that are identical to normal aside from paint job.)  It gets annoying being locked into Sabot Pod with normal Shrike if I want it to kill stuff.  Shrike (P) has annoyingly low OP.

Odyssey with combat skills is strong, but it has to specialize.  If I outfit it like a conventional ship, it stinks and gets killed.  As for being the best, not sure.  It can avoid stuff, but killing things before PPT runs out without making a mistake can be tricky.  It can do what playership Conquest does faster and with less damage taken.  Meanwhile, sometimes Paragon can flatten the enemy quickly (that other capitals need finesse to deal with) while other times, one mistake and it goes down like Onslaught or Conquest.  Odyssey can use large energy weapons, and the gap between energy and ballistics is less for large mounts.  Without skills, I do not know how good Odyssey is compared to others.  AI cannot use loadouts that are devastating under player control.  Plasma Odyssey piloted by AI will burn into a mob to die.  AI Odyssey probably needs that shotgun build.

Paragon seems a bit overpriced.  It is good in player hands, but AI does not seem do much better with it than with Onslaught or Conquest no matter what I put on it.  Under AI control, it seems to perform like a 50 DP ship.  Player might make it worth 60 DP under ideal conditions.

Quote
Aurora, I'm not sure if it's good enough for its cost, or not. I typically use it as a missile cruiser, with missiles in question being sabots, and while it's great for bullying smaller ships, it typically has to dump all the missiles to tackle same size opponents or even bigger. I should take it for some AI testing, since borderline all of my experience with it is with my own piloting, but unfortunately I'm very short on time currently and I have no idea when will that happen. Odyssey is in a similar spot, since... Well, actually, it's absurdly rare and I have no idea how competitive it is lately, in comparison to Conquest. I liked the ship a lot, once, but carrier rework made flying it busier than previously.
Under player control, it can solo a mob of smaller ships, that other lesser cruisers cannot do, but it requires some finesse or else Aurora will take too much damage or die from one mistake.  Doom or a capital can just flatten them with less finesse required for only a few more OP.  Aurora under AI control is incompetent.  Meanwhile, AI can use Doom well, and can use a capital more easily than Aurora.  Aurora is probably worth 25 to 27 DP.

Without missiles, Aurora needs to throw everything into vents and hullmods that improve flux stats and shields to win flux wars against equal opponents or mobs.  Does not matter if it is two heavy blasters in turrets, or a mix of (IR) pulse lasers and a heavy blaster or ion pulser in the hardpoint.

The nice thing about Conquest is both player and AI can use it.  It can (try to) do what Odyssey can do, but it takes a bit longer and will probably take more damage.  So it is not as good as skilled Odyssey under player control, but at least the AI can pilot Conquest well enough and not do stupid things.

Quote
But we might notice that these are not problems with energy weapons these are problems with like... 2 frigates maybe.
Aurora too, but that could be fixed by lowering the DP cost closer to other cruisers.

Problems with energy weapons is not for high-tech alone, but also midline.  There are not many weapons I want to use over ballistics on many midline ships.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 01:46:00 PM
I see thanks for the quick replies. But why mention it compared to baseline? For instance my "baseline" for frigates is 5. If you are talking about flux capacity or dissapitation, a more useful metric would be flux / DP would it not?

Maybe but the claim was that they just didnt have a flux advantage. Which they do.

Also because they have other advantages (speed, shield quality) which factor into the DP and make it harder to give a proper estimation. As an example the medusa is not going to out-DPS a hammerhead. But it might/probably will outperform a hammerhead. And if we just looked at flux/DP we might ignore the other advantages.

4 is used as the frigate baseline because the only frigates with DP of 5 or higher are high tech :p. Cant compare the wolf to itself or the tempest can we?

For flux/DP. The wolf comes out behind (waaay behind compared to the centurion or brawler as it has less raw flux than them and thryre cheaper!). The shrike comes out way ahead. Normalized to 10 DP it would have 437 base flux/second and 306 post shield (compared to the hammerheads 250/150) and it would get 25% more value per vent. The medusa comes out ahead but not as definitively. (333 base and 233 post shield). And will be ahead slightly even after vents are maxed

The apogee would win significantly and hilariously if it atabalized shields. And the Aurora would win only if stabalized its shields and the eagle didnt*  (Handily if it stabalized and front shield emmittered). Eagle will always beat it full vent shields down due to vent value increase but not by a whole lot. (And in general i consider shield up value more important)

*which is reasonable because the aurora has more OP and medium energy weapons are better at using up flux compared to ballistic which further saves on OP.

Re: megas... but the doom is a high tech ship...

And frankly I love the aurora as an AI cruiser. I find it really good, especialy at the primary purpose of AI ships which is not dying.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 09, 2019, 01:59:36 PM
Re: megas... but the doom is a high tech ship...
They're in their own category. Some time ago I said a similar thing and Alex responded that they're a thing for themselves, just fancy phase ships.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2019, 02:09:49 PM
Doom does not really need energy weapons, although it seems to be able to use two heavy blasters comfortably.  The mine system is really powerful.  Doom do not need much beyond its mines to wreck the enemy.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 02:10:26 PM
Re: megas... but the doom is a high tech ship...
They're in their own category. Some time ago I said a similar thing and Alex responded that they're a thing for themselves, just fancy phase ships.

Sure but “i dont think the aurora is as good as a doom” has the same issue with the doom being its own class as if it was high tech. The doom isnt a low or mid tech warship... its also 35 DP and its primary non-special weapon are medium energy weapons...
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2019, 02:19:36 PM
Blasters and even missiles aren't Doom's primary weapons, mines are. Blasters are just for convenient frigate cleanup, you don't even get to use them when fighting a capital like Paragon (which can be soloed by skill-less Doom).
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 09, 2019, 02:21:18 PM
Doom main weapon is it's mine strike ship system. It really doesn't need any other weapon to be useful. As it is, it seems that people seem to think that High tech ships which uses energy weapon simply aren't fast enough to use energy weapons.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Schwartz on September 09, 2019, 02:24:42 PM
I don't see the problem with Energy weapons. They have their own upsides and downsides, such as being paired to the ships that can actually mount them. They don't need to be 1:1 balanced to kinetics, just as missiles aren't balanced to either of the other two.

Some more weapon variety would always be welcomed, though.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2019, 02:27:10 PM
I use heavy blasters on Doom because they are on turrets and not on hard points.  Handy for picking off minor threats, or blowing holes on distracted enemies.  I would not be surprised if a Doom mounted four railguns or needlers only and still wrecked fleets with kinetics and mines.

If I do not have good weapons, pulse lasers and light autocannons work too while enemy is pinned by mines.

I like to see a weaker but more effective low-end medium or high-end light hard-flux weapon with at least 600 range.  Pulse laser with 333 flux per second can be a bit too flux demanding for some ships.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 02:28:02 PM
Blasters and even missiles aren't Doom's primary weapons, mines are. Blasters are just for convenient frigate cleanup, you don't even get to use them when fighting a capital like Paragon (which can be soloed by skill-less Doom).

I use the medium energy weapons a lot on the doom. Its really good for pressuring small ships when you dont need to be phased. Ion beam and heavy blaster with ITU. Good againat big ships too. I almost never fit 4 HNs that you all seem to like.

Its still a non-sequitor with regards to energy weapon balance in relation to warships.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 09, 2019, 02:44:35 PM
I think it's worth considering that ships with ballistics can fire above dissipation more easily than ships with energy weapons because ballistics are super efficient. Comparing high tech to other ships is tricky because over-gunning a high tech ship does nothing in the flux war and is probably even detrimental, but over-gunning a mid/low tech ship with kinetics will probably make it better in the flux war since it is doing ~2 damage/flux for most kinetic weapons (and maybe even better for something like a needler). The .5 shield efficiency mark is actually very interesting because that is the point where the average kinetic weapon is detrimental when firing over the dissipation limit.

I think dissipation gives a less complete picture of firepower on ballistic based ships than it does on high tech ships because ballistics ships can over-gun past the dissipation limit with efficiency weapons.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 03:22:47 PM
I think it's worth considering that ships with ballistics can fire above dissipation more easily than ships with energy weapons because ballistics are super efficient. Comparing high tech to other ships is tricky because over-gunning a high tech ship does nothing in the flux war and is probably even detrimental, but over-gunning a mid/low tech ship with kinetics will probably make it better in the flux war since it is doing ~2 damage/flux for most kinetic weapons (and maybe even better for something like a needler). The .5 shield efficiency mark is actually very interesting because that is the point where the average kinetic weapon is detrimental when firing over the dissipation limit.

I think dissipation gives a less complete picture of firepower on ballistic based ships than it does on high tech ships because ballistics ships can over-gun past the dissipation limit with efficiency weapons.

This is true but its also kinda non-sequitor. The AI isn't good at determining which weapons to shoot into shield and to overlux with. The player can more easily set themselves up to overflux on kinetics but otherwise the margin is on the average shield damage efficiency because the AI will continue to shoot the HE and kinetic at similar rates... or at least the AI will do this when its flux is low, which is basically the same thing.

For the player you would probably want to consider the marginal flux efficiency of firing over flux and that will be based on your HE damage... which you should probably have a decent amount of if you plan to actually kill things once you get their shields down.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2019, 04:33:15 PM
Apogee is definitely atypical.  It can use a heavy weapon (and a heavy missile), and it has other goodies.  At its best, it punches like a 20 or 22 DP cruiser for the low cost of 18 DP.
At worse it dies to a couple of frigates as it can't ward off frigates as easily as other cruisers can.
Apogee does alright with (IR) Pulse Lasers in the smaller rear mounts to defend against small flankers.  Thanks to flares and shield, it does not need PD as badly as other ships.  Unskilled Apogee can deal with five SIM frigates (Lashers, Vigilance, Brawler, and Hound; should be comparable to early game fodder).  If it sticks with what it starts with (PD Lasers and Pilums, I think), then sure, Apogee will be in trouble.

If anything, Eagle struggles more than it should (against the above five frigates) unless it has the right loadout.  (Classic three Graviton Eagle will not work, but Thaago's phase lance Eagle does.)  Eagle costs more than Apogee.  22 DP vs. 18 DP.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 05:01:37 PM
Sim Apogee has PD lasers, Mining Blaster, Piliums... its not a particularly good test case for fending off 5 frigates compared to even a sim eagle(which is not that good at it since it does not have high precision penetration/strike weapons like the phase lance)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 09, 2019, 05:07:13 PM
Sorry, I should have clarified player piloted with no personal skills.  (Did have Loadout Design.)

I did not try starter Apogee, because it would probably be dead.  (PD lasers would not do much against a shielded Lasher or the like.)  However, all of the weapons it needs are not too hard to get, except maybe plasma cannon.  (Locusts are more accessible since pirates use and sell them.)
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 09, 2019, 06:01:36 PM
I tend to go light on HE for the AI, probably 1/3 of weapons/flux generation, but could be more or less depending on what I plan on fighting, more if I will be fighting pirates and ludds, less for high tech and remnants. I then use missiles, bombers and the player ship for killing power. If the AI doesn't die and gets the enemy high on flux, I consider that a success.

Anyway, if 2/3 of weapon flux generation is giving 2 damage/flux and 1/3 of damage is at .5 damage/flux then average output is 1.5 damage/flux. It's more efficient usage of dissipation and capacity regardless of whether you exceed dissipation or not. You can win the flux war at the expense of killing things slower. Usually a good trade for the AI., and not a trade that can be made on high tech ships.

Over-gunning is mostly relevant on low tech ships that can easily fill their entire dissipation with kinetics and still have mounts to spare. They also tend to have lots of missiles mounts for 0 flux HE to back up that kinetic damage and armor to deal with high flux situations better.

On another note, I wish that I could test against ship variants that I've made. The default cruiser load outs are so bad in the sim that testing against them doesn't really tell you anything.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Embolism on September 09, 2019, 06:51:34 PM
Pulse laser should have 1:1 flux to damage efficiency. IR pulse has it. Beyond that I don't think pulse laser needs more buffs.

Ion pulser... needs to decide what it wants to be. For an ion weapon it is too flux inefficient and has less range than the light version. For a damage dealer it is also quite flux inefficient and thanks to weak and spreading shots performs poorly against armour. The only thing it does better than others is burst against shields, which is questionable given its short range and flux inefficiency. For starters, it should have 500 range, a bit less spread and cost 90 flux per shot. Might still need further buffs on top of that.

Mining blaster should cost 8 OP, have 600 range and deal 500 damage instead of 700 with better flux efficiency. Damage nerf is so it doesn't get used by certain high tech ships as a superior burst weapon: it just doesn't sit right that the most advanced warships would actually prefer to use a *** mining blaster instead of a sleek, weapons-grade blaster.

Phase Lance I've already said my piece. The alternative to buffing its range would be to give it 1:1 flux to damage efficiency.

Heavy burst should recharge faster than burst PD and have close to 1:1 flux to damage efficiency. I don't see why its efficiency is so much worse than burst PD.

If ion cannon and IR pulse can't have 600 range then they should at least have 550 range. Mining laser should cost 1 OP if it can't be buffed.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2019, 10:09:44 PM
On another note, I wish that I could test against ship variants that I've made. The default cruiser load outs are so bad in the sim that testing against them doesn't really tell you anything.

You can, but it's not convenient to do. You'd have to make minimod for your variant list and copy ones you want from mission or saves (after editing there).

Mining blaster should cost 8 OP, have 600 range and deal 500 damage instead of 700 with better flux efficiency. Damage nerf is so it doesn't get used by certain high tech ships as a superior burst weapon: it just doesn't sit right that the most advanced warships would actually prefer to use a *** mining blaster instead of a sleek, weapons-grade blaster.

Right, let's nerf already struggling Hyperion further into oblivion...
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 09, 2019, 10:26:08 PM
This might sound weird, but I've used mining blasters to decent effect on very early game fleets. A wolf with a mining blaster sucks right up until you need to crack the armor of something, where it suddenly becomes useful.

Of course now that we start with a Hammerhead with heavy mortars in the tutorial, I can just use that for early armor cracking.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Embolism on September 09, 2019, 10:27:00 PM
Mining blaster should cost 8 OP, have 600 range and deal 500 damage instead of 700 with better flux efficiency. Damage nerf is so it doesn't get used by certain high tech ships as a superior burst weapon: it just doesn't sit right that the most advanced warships would actually prefer to use a *** mining blaster instead of a sleek, weapons-grade blaster.
Right, let's nerf already struggling Hyperion further into oblivion...

When a ship's "balance" is based solely on a single weapon, where do you think the issue lies...?
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 09, 2019, 10:30:13 PM
Mining blaster should cost 8 OP, have 600 range and deal 500 damage instead of 700 with better flux efficiency. Damage nerf is so it doesn't get used by certain high tech ships as a superior burst weapon: it just doesn't sit right that the most advanced warships would actually prefer to use a *** mining blaster instead of a sleek, weapons-grade blaster.
Right, let's nerf already struggling Hyperion further into oblivion...

When a ship's "balance" is based solely on a single weapon, where do you think the issue lies...?

Hyperion as a ship, clearly just a thin wrapper around it's system. It's not even a frigate in typical sense, just entirely different category as in normal ships/phase/hyperion.
And without Mining Blasters it's toothless.

Might as well give Hyperion built-in improved blasters.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Embolism on September 09, 2019, 10:42:25 PM
Hyperion as a ship, clearly just a thin wrapper around it's system. It's not even a frigate in typical sense, just entirely different category as in normal ships/phase/hyperion.
And without Mining Blasters it's toothless.

The solution then is to fix the Hyperion, and not make the Mining Blaster sink with it.

Mining Blaster IMO should be a budget option. As it is it's not very budget and its flux efficiency is so hideous it can barely be used by ships that might want a budget option. Light weapons-grade range doesn't help.

The solution to the Hyperion in my mind is to axe the teleporter. It did a lot more harm than good.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: intrinsic_parity on September 09, 2019, 10:58:34 PM
I think the mining blaster should have reduced flux cost and a longer firing delay. Efficiency should be like 1.5, maybe even a but better. I think reducing damage would make it too similar to the heavy blaster, just worse. Lower dps but better armor cracking and lower OP cost seems like a more interesting choice.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 09, 2019, 11:05:01 PM
Sorry, I should have clarified player piloted with no personal skills.  (Did have Loadout Design.)

I did not try starter Apogee, because it would probably be dead.  (PD lasers would not do much against a shielded Lasher or the like.)  However, all of the weapons it needs are not too hard to get, except maybe plasma cannon.  (Locusts are more accessible since pirates use and sell them.)

I was agreeing with you :p. If the royal you had used the sim apogee and discovered it did poorly against frigates this would be because the fit is bad not because the ship lacks the tools to deal with flanking frigates.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: MesoTroniK on September 09, 2019, 11:16:41 PM
Ion pulser... needs to decide what it wants to be. For an ion weapon it is too flux inefficient and has less range than the light version. For a damage dealer it is also quite flux inefficient and thanks to weak and spreading shots performs poorly against armour. The only thing it does better than others is burst against shields, which is questionable given its short range and flux inefficiency. For starters, it should have 500 range, a bit less spread and cost 90 flux per shot. Might still need further buffs on top of that.
It will basically turn off an entire broadside of a capital ship with *one* good salvo. What else does it need lol? The spread is actually beneficial for that. Anyways any buffs would make it far too easy to declaw everything it shoots at.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 10, 2019, 04:02:39 AM
This might sound weird, but I've used mining blasters to decent effect on very early game fleets. A wolf with a mining blaster sucks right up until you need to crack the armor of something, where it suddenly becomes useful.
Mining blaster is just a bad Heavy Blaster. It's always worth finding using that extra 2 OP for normal combat ships. Mining Laser is only really worth it as a piloted ship and even then you will probably prefer the aforementioned heavy blaster or Phase Lance.

Apogee is definitely atypical.  It can use a heavy weapon (and a heavy missile), and it has other goodies.  At its best, it punches like a 20 or 22 DP cruiser for the low cost of 18 DP.
At worse it dies to a couple of frigates as it can't ward off frigates as easily as other cruisers can.
Apogee does alright with (IR) Pulse Lasers in the smaller rear mounts to defend against small flankers.  Thanks to flares and shield, it does not need PD as badly as other ships.  Unskilled Apogee can deal with five SIM frigates (Lashers, Vigilance, Brawler, and Hound; should be comparable to early game fodder).  If it sticks with what it starts with (PD Lasers and Pilums, I think), then sure, Apogee will be in trouble.

If anything, Eagle struggles more than it should (against the above five frigates) unless it has the right loadout.  (Classic three Graviton Eagle will not work, but Thaago's phase lance Eagle does.)  Eagle costs more than Apogee.  22 DP vs. 18 DP.
IR pulse lasers are not enough if by smaller rear mounts, you meant the medium rear mounts. Apogee really feels like it does extremely poorly vs frigates; you should try testing against purely Wolfs and Lashers instead. I suppose you could try making an anti-frigate Apogee, but that's just negating the strength of the Apogee. Don't know what you mean by what it starts off with. Who would test their fleet ship by using the sim ships as the ship being tested and using personal ships as the opponent? That's just reverse of normal.

Ion pulser... needs to decide what it wants to be. For an ion weapon it is too flux inefficient and has less range than the light version. For a damage dealer it is also quite flux inefficient and thanks to weak and spreading shots performs poorly against armour. The only thing it does better than others is burst against shields, which is questionable given its short range and flux inefficiency. For starters, it should have 500 range, a bit less spread and cost 90 flux per shot. Might still need further buffs on top of that.
It will basically turn off an entire broadside of a capital ship with *one* good salvo. What else does it need lol? The spread is actually beneficial for that. Anyways any buffs would make it far too easy to declaw everything it shoots at.
It's more of a case that there aren't that many ships that can use the Ion Pulser. It seems built to be a weapon used with Saftey Override Hullmod but there aren't that many suitable ships to take the shield out in the first place. Perhaps Harbinger? SO Eagle? In theory an AI ship can take out shields and dart in to burst fire. Maybe Shrike? Might work since it only has 1 medium gun. But the DPS is low. Wouldn't the AI simply normally not use it for most ships since the Ion Pulsar is short ranged or when it does use it, it will waste its ammo on shields? Only time I would put an Ion Pulsar on a ship is if I intended to pilot it myself.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 05:53:00 AM
I was agreeing with you :p. If the royal you had used the sim apogee and discovered it did poorly against frigates this would be because the fit is bad not because the ship lacks the tools to deal with flanking frigates.
There is no SIM Apogee, unless you mean start with Apogee and immediately enter simulation.  I suppose you normally play with mods that add more ship to the simulator.  (I have played completely unmodded since 0.9a.)  I do not find it unreasonable to equip fairly common weapons on Apogee.  What would a starter Eagle look like?  Full of Mining/PD Lasers and Arbalests/Heavy Mortar/Thumper?

I think the mining blaster should have reduced flux cost and a longer firing delay. Efficiency should be like 1.5, maybe even a but better. I think reducing damage would make it too similar to the heavy blaster, just worse. Lower dps but better armor cracking and lower OP cost seems like a more interesting choice.
At least better efficiency, maybe 1.5.

IR pulse lasers are not enough if by smaller rear mounts, you meant the medium rear mounts. Apogee really feels like it does extremely poorly vs frigates; you should try testing against purely Wolfs and Lashers instead. I suppose you could try making an anti-frigate Apogee, but that's just negating the strength of the Apogee. Don't know what you mean by what it starts off with. Who would test their fleet ship by using the sim ships as the ship being tested and using personal ships as the opponent? That's just reverse of normal.
IR Pulse Lasers in the smalls, normal Pulse Lasers in the mediums (although I guess IR Pulse Lasers can work in the mediums).  Those are not too hard to find early.  I guess I could try Pirate Wolves.  Player will probably fight mostly pirates early.  I was not testing for AI use as part of your fleet, but flagship, because you probably will pilot your starter Apogee or your first Eagle yourself.

Re: Ion Pulser
The one ship that seems best suited for it is Aurora.  Its hard point is some distance ahead of turrets, so two Heavy Blasters and Ion Pulser is an option.  Beyond that, ion pulser is a stinker - too short ranged, too inefficient.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 10, 2019, 07:05:08 AM
Megas, I was testing as Apogee as a fleet ship as I do small starts. I assumed it wouldn't be flagship as I tend to use phase ships as the piloted ship instead, but I can understand your reasoning.

I was thinking a bit more about the Ion Pulsar and I suppose a SO Medusa, like the Aurora is just about the only other ship than might want to use it as it can jump in and out with its Phase Skimmer. Looking at the ship variants for an insight to inteded role, only Aurora, Harbinger, Conquest and Paragon has variants with it. Aurora (Assault Support) variant is hilariously emp focused with 6(!) ion cannons and 2 pulsar, the Harbinger can have better layouts, and the other two will never use it.

__________

As a thought experiment, is there a mod that simply replaces all ships in the game with energy weapon variants? How much of a change in ship stats for Flux Capacity, Flux Dissipation, Shield efficiency and Speed is needed before turning a pure ballistic ship into a pure energy ship is considered equal?

On an assumption that "normal" energy weapons are a combination of a Kinetic weapon and High Explosive weapon which are always paired together with a 1:1 Flux / damage, the KE and HE ballistic weapon combined together actually have a 0.8 Flux / damage against shields. This suggests that assuming energy and ballistic weapons are equal (which they are not due to range, accuracy, weapon speed, armour effects), energy weapons should have a 0.8 Flux/damage, or energy ships should have 25% more flux dissapitation if otherwise exactly the same as ballistic ships.

Of course, neither weapons nor ships are otherwise exactly the same, and I've ignored armour effects where the paired KE and HE weapons will do better than a shield dps, but that energy weapons should have a 0.8 Flux / damage is a good starting point for comparison. For point of comparison, the IR Pulse Laser is 1, the Pulse Laser is 1.1 and the Autopulse Laser is 0.833 flux / damage.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 07:13:51 AM
Related:  For ballistic ships, is there any reason to use Mjolnir instead of Hellbore/HAG and more kinetics?  There are reasons, but part of them involve OP, range, number of mounts, and/or accuracy, rather than damage and dissipation alone.  If I all I cared about damage and dissipation, I probably would use HAG and more kinetics, because of greater damage.  Sometimes, Mjolnir and somewhat fewer kinetics can be at least as good, despite less total damage.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Igncom1 on September 10, 2019, 08:26:04 AM
I suppose it's a do all weapon that technically doesn't need assistance. Which is rare for ballistics to possess.

Otherwise nah, it's expensive and rare that makes it worth only as a collectors item. In my opinion.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 10, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
EMP? Reliability to ships where ballistic mounts might be at different distance to the opponent? You basically listed all the  reasons as exclusions, and then declared that you only care about damage and dissapitation alone, so of course by those reasons you wouldn't want to use it.

I don't like Mjolnir, because as an exception to normal ballistic rules, it makes most large energy weapons seem so pointless by comparison.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 10, 2019, 10:39:38 AM
Mjolnir just needs to be a little bit more efficient and it would be competitive again - not too much or it would dominate. Its shot size is large enough to be decent against moderate armor, the EMP is nice, and its still ok vs shields.

I kind of like it as is on a Conquest when paired with kinetics for hunting highly shielded ships (Remnants). It gives extra shield breaking compared to an HE option.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 11:19:46 AM
I like Mjolnir on Conquest because I can rely mostly on 900 range ballistics.  Mark IX for kinetic, and Mjolnir for all-purpose (anti-shield and anti-armor) use.  Maybe Heavy Needler or Autocannon in-between the two, but it only has 800 range.

On Dominator, Mjolnir and Heavy Needler on hardpoints is an (somewhat more accurate) alternative to HAG and Mark IX, provided I can accept 800 range for the needler.  Ditto for Legion for the heavy mounts.

On Onslaught, I need all of the kinetic damage its flux can support, plus missiles or TPCs for anti-armor.  No room for Mjolnir.

Quote
EMP? Reliability to ships where ballistic mounts might be at different distance to the opponent? You basically listed all the  reasons as exclusions, and then declared that you only care about damage and dissapitation alone, so of course by those reasons you wouldn't want to use it.
I wrote "If I all I cared about damage and dissipation..."  The reasons to use Mjolnir over others are those that cannot be casually observed from paper.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 10, 2019, 11:23:49 AM
MarkIX + Mjolnir is nice on Conquest. You don't need much to get through armor of most cruisers and below, especially with character skills, and it's obviously better than MarkIX+HAG against shield. Fast and accurate projectiles are nice bonus too.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 10, 2019, 11:43:00 AM
Related:  For ballistic ships, is there any reason to use Mjolnir instead of Hellbore/HAG and more kinetics?  There are reasons, but part of them involve OP, range, number of mounts, and/or accuracy, rather than damage and dissipation alone.  If I all I cared about damage and dissipation, I probably would use HAG and more kinetics, because of greater damage.  Sometimes, Mjolnir and somewhat fewer kinetics can be at least as good, despite less total damage.

Absolutely. Besides OP, Range, Accuracy, Mount Numbers etc... which are all reasonable reasons for picking a weapon since that translates to real damage and these are all similar advantages of other energy weapons for which weapons could not be considered weak there is the raw numbers which put the value of the Mjolnir at similar to a combination of kinetics and HE.

A combination of Mark IX and HAG for instance has a shield efficiency of .9407 flux/damage(better than the Mjolnirs 1.25) And a flux/hull damage efficiency of 1.78 vs 1600 armor base no skills (worse than the mjolnirs 1.5). And the breakeven point against armor is almost inconsequential (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Solve+for+348%2F1760*50%2F%2850%2Bx%29+%2B+960%2F880*240%2F%28240%2Bx%29+%3D+533%2F667*400%2F%28400%2Bx%29). So the Mjolnir is pretty indistinguishable from a combination of KE and HE aside from all the other advantages like accuracy, projectile speed, recoil, and EMP damage.

So the Mjolnir is pretty even in terms of flux efficiency compared to two weapons. Using the HE/KE weapons you can more easily scale your DPS to the damage type for better efficiency. But you also cannot as easily overflux when you want to penetrate armor faster because each weapon collectively uses less flux. You don't get EMP damage. And the accuracy is a significant contributor. I ignored armor kill flux values because i don't want to write an algorithm to figure it out and it should be incredibly similar.

Mjolnir:
Flux to Kill Onslaught shields : 21250
Flux to Kill Onslaught Hull: 30503
Total: 51,753

HAG+MkIX
Flux to Kill Onslaught shields: 15,991
Flux to Kill Onslaught Hull: 36,796
Total: 52,787

HAG only:
Shields: 34,000
Hull: 23,645
Total: 57,645

MKIX only:

Shields 9,770
Hull: 63,218
Total: 72,988

If you're going to mix damage types its probably better to run Mjolnir and simply eat the higher fitting cost. Otherwise you should stack kinetic and kill with other forms of HE like missiles.

As others have noted MK IX and Mjolnir is a good combo as well. But mainly for the non-dps attributes of the mjolnir. Either way if you're discounting the Mjolnir because "it doesn't do enough damage compared to kinetics and HE" you're mistaken. It does just as much before the other weapon advantages.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 10, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
The way I see it, the main use of Mjolnir is its high damage per shot, combined with high velocity and accuracy. Hellbore is good against significant armour, HAG is better against smaller ships, Mjolnir is good against both.

If I were to change energy weapon stats...
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 12:18:14 PM
The biggest limiter is dissipation.  It might be a choice between Mjolnir+Heavy Needler vs. HAG+Mark IX.  (Not Mjolnir+Mark IX because something like Dominator/Legion does not have the dissipation to support that much comfortably.)  I tried several SIM tests and while HAG+Mark IX kills a bit faster than Mjolnir+Needler, it is only by within about ten seconds (out of from 90-120 second fight against something like SIM Onslaught) so it might as well be even.  I did get closer to the enemy to use Heavy Needler.

I tried Mjolnir only, but it does not break shields fast enough.  If it did, I would use them much more.  If I mount Mjolnir, I cannot mount much more before lack of dissipation kills the loadout.

Quote
If you're going to mix damage types its probably better to run Mjolnir and simply eat the higher fitting cost. Otherwise you should stack kinetic and kill with other forms of HE like missiles.
HE Missiles do not last long enough in long meat-grinder fights.  Onslaught would be very happy if its Annihilators lasted more than two minutes.  I try to squeeze some more reliable anti-armor (that will not run out) if I can.  The question is in what form?  Mjolnir or other heavy weapon?

As for mixing damage types, I might hand the ship off to AI, and I have no control of it mixing guns or not.  Maybe it will juggle groups, or maybe not, or maybe it is impossible due to five groups being not enough.  Best to assume all guns can be fired at will, unless it is playership-only loadout.

  • IR Pulse Laser: damage per second from 152 to 200 or 220: it needs more bite, when even a dual autocannon gives it a run for its money!
If that means flux cost also goes higher, it probably just make it too hard to support more than a few.  I agree that the likes of light autocannons already compete with it.  IR Pulse Laser needs something if it is supposed to be a frigate weapon frigates can win with.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Grievous69 on September 10, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
The way I see it, the main use of Mjolnir is its high damage per shot, combined with high velocity and accuracy. Hellbore is good against significant armour, HAG is better against smaller ships, Mjolnir is good against both.

If I were to change energy weapon stats...
  • Mining Laser: flux per second from 35 to 10, possibly also OP from 2 to 1: low power, high efficiency PD, a slot filler.
  • IR Pulse Laser: damage per second from 152 to 200 or 220: it needs more bite, when even a dual autocannon gives it a run for its money!
  • Phase Lance: range from 600 to 800, OP from 10 to 14: making the phase lance a medium tactical laser, if it's really needed. Otherwise, medium taclaser would end up dominant on midline ships, while heavy blaster would remain as the burst option for high tech ships.
  • Mining Blaster: range from 500 to 600, OP from 10 to 7: heavy mortar provides excellent value for its OP, so this one... can at least be cheap, if nothing else.
  • Heavy Burst Laser: OP from 11 to 9, flux per second from 500 to 300, ammo reload from 0.5 to 0.67 per second: it might be just mine opinion, but a PD gun in medium energy mount has to be really good to be worth using.
  • Paladin PD: flux per second from 1500 to 750: similar deal as with HBL.
There's really no need to change the Phase Lance as it is now, since it fills a nice role of short range burst armor stripper. Would be kinda crazy with that much range. Agree with everything else.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 12:28:17 PM
There's really no need to change the Phase Lance as it is now, since it fills a nice role of short range burst armor stripper. Would be kinda crazy with that much range. Agree with everything else.
I like to see phase lance be more efficient (no worse than Pulse Laser), if nothing else changes.

It might be a good idea to rename its role to something like Defense (anti-ship), seems it is good at picking off fighters and small ships that try to swarm the defender.  It stinks for general-purpose assault on its own (except as a strike weapon for Harbinger), unless it has extra range and help from other weapons.  Rather use pulse laser for assault.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Wyvern on September 10, 2019, 12:51:36 PM
If I were going to change the mining laser...
This makes it great at, say, shooting down one salamander missile or one incoming fighter, but terrible for any sort of sustained defense, and very vulnerable to being distracted by chaff (be that fighters with flares or just something like swarmer missiles).  It also gives it a secondary niche of "armor-cracking vs frigates".
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 10, 2019, 02:20:33 PM
There's really no need to change the Phase Lance as it is now, since it fills a nice role of short range burst armor stripper. Would be kinda crazy with that much range. Agree with everything else.
I like to see phase lance be more efficient (no worse than Pulse Laser), if nothing else changes.

It might be a good idea to rename its role to something like Defense (anti-ship), seems it is good at picking off fighters and small ships that try to swarm the defender.  It stinks for general-purpose assault on its own (except as a strike weapon for Harbinger), unless it has extra range and help from other weapons.  Rather use pulse laser for assault.

Phase Lances already ARE more efficient than pulse lasers.

Pulse laser Flux/Damage vs 500 armor: 6.6 Flux/Damage
Heavy Blaster Flux/Damage vs 500 armor : 2.88 Flux/Damage
Phase Lance Flux/Damage vs 500 armor 2.40 Flux/Damage

Flux/Armor and Hull Damage efficiency breakpoints
Phase Lance > actual Armor is greater than 43.89
Phase Lance > Hull minimum armor when maximum armor armor is 877

Note that 800 is not a lot of armor.

Do not that this overestimates the flux/damage of phase lances because the fact that its a beam pushes it towards the optimal tick rate to reduce damage (that is. If you could do 1 damage every 1/500th of a second at penetration 500 you would do more damage to armor than if you did 500 damage every second at 500 penetration).

Phase lances are the best armor penetration flux damage for energy weapons in the medium energy set. They're not as good as Heavy Mortars (1.34 vs 500 armor) or Assault Chainguns (1.25) but heavy mortars may have some other disadvantages that are relevant to their ability to penetrate armor (like their "ability" to hit said armor) and assault chainguns may have similar issues and also may be hilariously OP and need to be nerfed significantly.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 04:45:25 PM
Quote
Phase Lances already ARE more efficient than pulse lasers.
Only for anti-armor as you point out, which I guess is fine if anti-armor is the only reason to mount them.

1.2 efficiency is not good if I am looking for a cheaper weapon than Pulse Laser to support (because Pulse Laser eats a bit too much flux for comfort), and the next thing that could substitute for it, Phase Lance, is nearly as flux-hungry.  High-200s is less than 333, but may still a bit too high for comfort.

No hard-flux and 600 range really hurts, so unless I have ways to mitigate the weaknesses (like kinetics on the ship, bypass shields like Harbinger, overpower weak shields due to lance spam) or really desperate for lower flux load, I rather use pulse laser for general-purpose use.  At least pulse laser will put hard flux on shields and make it easier to win the flux war against (AI) targets that can tank a lance strike or two on shields, then dissipate the soft flux if I cannot keep the pressure up.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Embolism on September 10, 2019, 05:11:40 PM
It will basically turn off an entire broadside of a capital ship with *one* good salvo. What else does it need lol? The spread is actually beneficial for that. Anyways any buffs would make it far too easy to declaw everything it shoots at.

The problem is an ion cannon can do a good enough job against an exposed, shieldless ship at considerably less cost in flux and better range. The AI will 100% use an ion cannon better than an ion pulser, and in player hands it's in the funny place where you have to rely on the AI to do some shield-breaking and then play the opportunistic, short-ranged flanker...
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 10, 2019, 05:26:07 PM
Quote
Phase Lances already ARE more efficient than pulse lasers.
Only for anti-armor as you point out, which I guess is fine if anti-armor is the only reason to mount them.

But its not. They're also perfectly accurate weapons with blazing projectile speed. They turn any moderately fluxed frigate into a dead frigate when that frigate would otherwise be able to retreat, from say pulse laser fire, and when you're not fast enough to catch them.

They do not miss and absolutely shred fighters.

It baffles me that you don't use them because i hoard phase lances like nothing else. I like them more than tachyon lances*.

*Tachyon lances have the same raw flux efficiency but cost 2.5x the OP for only 60% more DPS. They do have more range(and EMP) but 2 phase lances has more burst than a single tachyon and their lower range can be an advantage due to target discrimination.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 10, 2019, 05:40:34 PM
If I need them for PD, like on an Eagle, then sure, lances are good.  If my target is anything and everything (especially same-size opponents or larger), then phase lance stinks, unless I have other considerations (Advanced Optics, kinetics, mass stacking).

Quote
They do not miss and absolutely shred fighters.
If they are locked on target, then yes.  If not (I move the ship the moment it fires) and the whole burst misses, it hurts.

Quote
*Tachyon lances have the same raw flux efficiency but cost 2.5x the OP for only 60% more DPS. They do have more range(and EMP) but 2 phase lances has more burst than a single tachyon and their lower range can be an advantage due to target discrimination.
I like the range and especially shield penetration.  Tachyon Lances are a near automatic choice for ships that can mount ballistics, due to being semi-unblockable.  Unlike Ion Beam, the damage and EMP that leaks through is significant.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: ZeCaptain on September 10, 2019, 07:14:04 PM
I think energy weapons are fine as is, tach lances and mining blasters are also fine.

Mining blasters are good high powered burst weapons, and lances are good for hitscan long range damage.
Great for killing small annoying ships before they get in range like kites, wolves, and hounds that dance around your ships before they get in range.

They're also among the few reasonable responses against onslaughts and battle carriers, and a good response against pirates in general.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 10, 2019, 07:55:47 PM
Don't nerf my phase lances by giving them 200 more range at the cost of 4 OP! 600 range is good for Eagles and Falcons. The 600 range lets the main guns build hard flux first with the efficient kinetics, before firing at armor - it also saves the blast to swat down pesky frigates and fighters.

If you really feel the phase lance needs a buff, buff its turning speed, especially turning speed while firing! At present when ships activate a maneuverability system they can be thrown off target. Fixing that would further improve their fighter killing dominance.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: SCC on September 10, 2019, 10:39:21 PM
Crucial part of the phase lance change I proposed was "if a medium tactical laser was needed", and it's because phase lance already is a weapon for ships that have ballistics to deal with shields, or need something better than pulse laser to deal with fighters. That makes Tempest, Medusa, Falcon, Eagle and Paragon. Medium taclaser would obsolete phase lance for all ships, save for Tempest and Medusa.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: xenoargh on September 10, 2019, 11:01:57 PM
I have been testing a Medium Laser.  There's definitely a niche there.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 11, 2019, 01:32:33 AM
Quote
Phase Lances already ARE more efficient than pulse lasers.
Only for anti-armor as you point out, which I guess is fine if anti-armor is the only reason to mount them.

1.2 efficiency is not good if I am looking for a cheaper weapon than Pulse Laser to support (because Pulse Laser eats a bit too much flux for comfort), and the next thing that could substitute for it, Phase Lance, is nearly as flux-hungry.  High-200s is less than 333, but may still a bit too high for comfort.

No hard-flux and 600 range really hurts, so unless I have ways to mitigate the weaknesses (like kinetics on the ship, bypass shields like Harbinger, overpower weak shields due to lance spam) or really desperate for lower flux load, I rather use pulse laser for general-purpose use.  At least pulse laser will put hard flux on shields and make it easier to win the flux war against (AI) targets that can tank a lance strike or two on shields, then dissipate the soft flux if I cannot keep the pressure up.

So from my perspective what it seems like youre asking for is uber weapons. You want weapons that are good againt armor and shield and deal hard flux.

But you just cant have weapons like that. Energy weapons are already “in the middle” in terms of armor/shield dpf. The unique advantages they bring is that they’re simultaneously as good as a combination of HE/Kinetic weapons while bringing other advantages like projectile speed and accuracy and tracking to the table.

They cannot really stretch to be the weapons you want without being hideously OP or losing those accuracy/projectile speed/recoil advantages. And if they do lose those advantages they will potentially be obsolete compared to the specialized weapons.

Part of this is because the weapons you want in support seem to already be there. You can gun down to IR pulse if youre having AI issues at 333. All the way down to 152 flux for 1 to 1 damage. Or if you were concerned with adding additional shield pressure instead of hard flux you could spend 75 flux for 200 shield damage from a graviton*. But for one reason or another these weapons dont work for you and i dont understand why. When presented with the alternative that does the thing you want you always find some reason to not like it. Either it does too much flux a second or too little flux/second sometimes for the same weapon. You want a bigger laser instead of just fitting two**. And if you did that i can see your complaint about the lack of shield damage already.

*while the graviton does not do hard flux its also the best efficiency kinetic damage in the game at .75! To 1000 range! On a beam that doesnt miss!

**as a semi-aside, stacked tac lasers are really powerful. Especially on fast ships. The damage is low but the accuracy and range mean you have trouble getting away and an ease of dealing damage. Each tac laser deals a minimum of 11.25 armor damage/second. Which doesnt seem like a lot until you try to take a 10 second vent getting hit by 5 of them. A 150 dps tac laser would just destroy ships. It would be hilarious.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 11, 2019, 05:18:54 AM
Quote
You want weapons that are good againt armor and shield and deal hard flux.
That is energy's gimmick, at least those that do not exceed 500-700 range.  I want one my ship can use without filling up on flux too fast, especially against ballistics users or enemies with tough shields that would have no problem winning the flux war unless two or more ships gang up on it.  All of the medium weapons are a bit too flux hungry for some ships (midline, some high-tech with bad flux stats).  Heavy weapons do not have this problem.  The medium ones are really annoying due to bad efficiency.  (Pulse laser is the closest, but not all ships can support it comfortably.)  Small only has IR Pulse Laser, which is too short-ranged for assault (but is decent as PD for big ships).

I do not want uber weapons, just better variety of gap fillers (or the existing ones buffed).  This is not unlike medium HE when Heavy Mauler became the only viable medium HE weapon when Chaingun became a SO-only melee weapon (450 range instead of 700).

IR Pulse Laser has terrible range.  If I had 600 range, it might be okay.  As it is, too short-ranged (and not powerful enough, if IR Pulse Laser already struggles against light ballistics) to substitute for medium weapon.

I would be perfectly happy with a low-end medium or high-end light 600 range hard-flux weapon that did low-200 DPS and have no worse than 1.0 efficiency.  It would be useful for Wolf and midline ships, those that have trouble supporting the current weapons.

Quote
**as a semi-aside, stacked tac lasers are really powerful. Especially on fast ships. The damage is low but the accuracy and range mean you have trouble getting away and an ease of dealing damage. Each tac laser deals a minimum of 11.25 armor damage/second. Which doesnt seem like a lot until you try to take a 10 second vent getting hit by 5 of them. A 150 dps tac laser would just destroy ships. It would be hilarious.
This is where I disagree with the others that brought this up before.  Few ships can stack that many on their own, and even those that do, they are not that strong, especially to give up other weapons like PD to make it work.  Six tactical laser Eagle is one, and the kill speed is not very fast.  If it was very effective, I would use it more.  As it is, I prefer other loadouts partly because I do not like giving up PD, and the sacrifice is not powerful enough for the trade to be worth it.  (No IPDAI to add PD.  IPDAI on Tactical Lasers kills the stacking, and is too slow to work well.)

P.S.  If I really want an uber weapon, I would want a Defender-style smart bomb or Gauntlet potion powered by Wizard that flashes the screen and all enemies on the map explode and die instantly, for an instant win.  That is even stronger than those '80s arcade games since they only kill the screen and not the whole level.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 11, 2019, 08:29:29 AM
**as a semi-aside, stacked tac lasers are really powerful. Especially on fast ships. The damage is low but the accuracy and range mean you have trouble getting away and an ease of dealing damage. Each tac laser deals a minimum of 11.25 armor damage/second. Which doesnt seem like a lot until you try to take a 10 second vent getting hit by 5 of them. A 150 dps tac laser would just destroy ships. It would be hilarious.

Tactical lasers don't make or break *any* good builds. TL Paragon and Sunder are the best ships to go for mostly pure soft flux build (due to sheer flux stats of Paragon and HEF for Sunder). TL Paragon could leave out Tacs and still work as a build, Sunder doesn't even have slots to use them.
For other ships Graviton+Tacs is way too slow at killing and meets fairly low hard ceiling of what it can't kill ever. Wolves are cheap enough to afford being just an annoyance, but a soft flux Medusa or Aurora is too much of DP waste.

If you try to combine tacs with ballistics instead of pure soft flux pressure builds, you just waste flux on Tacs most of the time. If you can't overpower dissipation (which is the case for such builds) and enemy has 0 soft on top of their hard flux, firing Tacs just wastes your flux.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Thaago on September 11, 2019, 10:06:07 AM
Tactical lasers are ok for forcing light ships to keep their shields up, but unfortunately do not work as expected with IPDA vs missiles due to their slow extend speed. They aren't awful, but aren't nearly as good as they look on paper.

I'd rather just mount LRPDs. 800 vs 1000 range is a downside, as is 50 vs 75 DPS, but they have significantly higher uptime thanks to their faster extend speed: it wouldn't surprise me if the real DPS of LRPDs was higher than tacs against multiple long range targets. The lower flux cost (30 vs 75) is also rather nice. For anti-fighter, the higher DPS really tells though: tactical lasers kill fighters faster.

I like tactical laser as the front small of a Wolf if I don't have an Ion Cannon - it forces enemy light frigates to keep their shields up while the Wolf vents off the excess flux from a pulse laser, letting them take advantage of their superior speed. My only complaint is that I wish the AI would turn it off when firing said pulse laser.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 11, 2019, 10:20:55 AM
Quote
You want weapons that are good againt armor and shield and deal hard flux.
That is energy's gimmick, at least those that do not exceed 500-700 range.  I want one my ship can use without filling up on flux too fast, especially against ballistics users or enemies with tough shields that would have no problem winning the flux war unless two or more ships gang up on it.  All of the medium weapons are a bit too flux hungry for some ships (midline, some high-tech with bad flux stats).  Heavy weapons do not have this problem.  The medium ones are really annoying due to bad efficiency.  (Pulse laser is the closest, but not all ships can support it comfortably.)  Small only has IR Pulse Laser, which is too short-ranged for assault (but is decent as PD for big ships).
Sorry by "good" i mean better. Because if they do, according to you, do good armor and shield damage and hard flux, with great shot speed and accuracy and recoil... then what are you complaining about?

They use too much flux? Fit fewer of them! They aren't efficient enough? I thought you just said they did good armor and shield damage...

And high tech ships with bad flux stats? We just had this discussion there is only one high tech ship with worse flux stats OR worse flux stats DP for DP. And its the wolf*. The shrike has more, the medusa has more, the aurora has more, the Apogee has more, the Odyssey has more, the Tempest and Scarab and Hyperion have more. In many cases a LOT more.

*and OK paragon probably falls in terms of "per DP" to the conquest but not the onslaught.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 11, 2019, 10:51:57 AM
Sorry by "good" i mean better. Because if they do, according to you, do good armor and shield damage and hard flux, with great shot speed and accuracy and recoil... then what are you complaining about?

They use too much flux? Fit fewer of them! They aren't efficient enough? I thought you just said they did good armor and shield damage...
They do good damage, but when it comes to tough shields (or enemies with lots of 1.0 and under efficient kinetics), "good" is not good enough unless the weapon is efficient enough.  I have no problem with heavy energy weapons, but for smaller ones, bad range and efficiency (and high flux cost for some ships) brings them too far down.  This is a reason why high-tech warships that cannot use ballistics have either many Sabots and Expanded Missile Racks (Shrike, Aurora) to mitigate flux war disadvantage or many mounts empty to maximize flux stats via hullmods (Aurora, Odyssey, maybe Apogee) to hopefully get an edge in the flux war when I use them.  (Tempest, I use as a pursuit ship to kill wimps or cripples it can overpower.)  If I try anything else, they either lose the flux war or get in a stalemate.

For conventional warships, I generally use less high-tech than midline or low-tech in my fleet.  Early game, I favor mostly low-tech and midline, aside from starter Apogee.  By endgame, I do not use many warships.  Majority of my endgame fleet are carriers or phase ships (or civilians).  For warships late, I tend to favor midline, though I bring Paragon as my flagship of choice and Conquest as backup.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 11, 2019, 11:44:32 AM
Maybe if you're not warship focused you might miss out on the advantages that high tech warships have to offer?

I almost never fly carrier heavy fleets by the end game. And while I do like mid-line for endgame fleets i do not find that high tech warship fleets are weak in the slightest even if they tend to be a bit better in the early game when fleets are small.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 11, 2019, 01:33:21 PM
You suggest I use an all (or mostly) warship fleet?  I do not think it is a good idea.

When I tried all warships against Ordos, it died or took too many casualties.  Too often, my warships could not shoot at the enemy because allies were in each others' line of fire.  Well, five Paragon fleet can win, but not before losing one or two.  (I take less or no casualties with a more balanced fleet.  Fewer frontline units supported by Dooms and fighters seem more effective, but not as much as Spark Drover cheese that chugs my computer.)

The phase ships seem like much, but they are mostly Afflictors to be chain-deployed and I pilot those (because four Reaper cheese twice per ship is so brutally unfair and effective) while my default flagship becomes yet another AI grunt.  If we still had synergy Harbinger, I would bring only one or two of those instead of about five Afflictors.  (I would bring even more Afflictors if not for fleet cap.)  Endgame, I can use Afflictors as suicide bombers (decloak in a crossfire or within target's blast range if it means the Reapers land).  I bring two or three Doom because they are generally great and AI uses them well.  Generally because they do not always play nice with burn drive ships.

Early game, I make do with what I find (which often means clunkers and lots of (D) mods).  Aside from starter ships, that usually means low-tech, aside from Shrike (P)s, which are good for being cheap and disposable.  Later, whatever I get from enemy expeditions.  Only late in the game do I get unlimited choice of what I want.

Of conventional high-tech ships...

Frigates... I skip nearly all of them (not just high-tech) very soon after game start.  Wolf may be of interest because it is a possible starter and the freebie fleet from the tutorial includes one.  For Wolf, I can do something with hard flux loadouts, but it is painful and one mistake means Wolf dies or takes too much damage.  AI gets an all-beam loadout, if possible, to harass things for a few fights before they get replaced by destroyer-sized clunkers.

Destroyers... Shrike is cheap and disposable, especially the common Shrike (P), so it is useful enough.  Medusa seems okay as a playership, but by the time I can get one, I already need a cruiser or bigger.  Medusa used to be very good, but it is not what it used to be.  I do not trust AI enough for Medusa, at least if I buy a pristine one instead of swiping a clunker from somewhere.

Cruisers...  Apogee does so much for below-average DP cost, and it is a possible starter.  Also, for early game, it can rely more on Locusts than energy weapons, if it gets Locusts early.  (It can fend off a small frigate mob that an Eagle would struggle with.)  Aurora... AI seems to do stupid things with it, which is good when I fight it (it is one of the first to die) or bad in my fleet.  If I want AI to use it, it must be Aggressive, which is annoying when everything else I use can use Steady AI.  I can make it worth its 30 DP if I pilot it, but it is so much effort and unforgiving of mistakes.  I can use a cheaper ship (not as good, but easier to use and keep alive) or a slightly more expensive ship that is much easier to use (no need for finesse when I can overpower them instead).

Capitals...  Odyssey seems to work best with an unbalanced loadout.  (Unbalanced in the sense of a diet.)  If I try a classic loadout that was good before 0.8a, it is sub-par and it dies.  But if I do something silly unbalanced like put two plasma cannons, crazy high dissipation, and very little else, it is more-or-less equal to Paragon, but only if I pilot it.  If I give it to AI, it acts dumb and dies.  If I want a loadout that the AI can use, Odyssey works much like an extra-large Shrike (heavy reliance on kinetic missiles) which while still roughly capital-grade, is nothing exceptional (whether I pilot it or AI).  Paragon is good.  Great in player hands, but AI does not do much better with it than with Onslaught or Conquest, not enough to make it worth 60 DP.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 11, 2019, 01:56:55 PM
Perhaps if you don't use a mostly warships fleet and it dies vs Ordos, you aren't the best judge of warship weaponry?
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 11, 2019, 02:10:13 PM
Perhaps if you don't use a mostly warships fleet and it dies vs Ordos, you aren't the best judge of warship weaponry?
Do not think that matters when ships do not fire weapons at all due to being too scared of hitting each other, or allied ship directly between attacker and enemy, but will die anyway if they do nothing.  And the ones (that I tried) that died most were Onslaughts, while trying to find and test loadouts for them that worked against Ordos.  That was the biggest problem with all warship fleets, or at least all-battleship fleets, against Ordos, unable to focus-fire against the enemy.  A more balanced fleet does not need to worry about allies in the line-of-fire much.

I should clarify the all warship fleets I tried against Ordos were all battleship fleets (like five Paragons).  The only other warships I had available at the time that were not capitals were two Eagles and two Apogees (and one Tempest reserved for pursuit).  I had plenty of carriers and phase ships, though.

One or two battleships at the front-line, plus fighters and phase ships that support them, can focus more firepower easily than five battleships that are too slow to move around allies in their line-of-fire.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 11, 2019, 02:19:42 PM
What's the point you are making? Your complaints have nothing to do with the weapons, but with that you are used to fighters and missiles being able to pass through and shoot each other without worry about collision.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 11, 2019, 02:56:38 PM
If your ships cannot fire weapons, then weapon balance is irrelevant because weapons that do not fire do nothing.  It is more like I had bad fleet composition.  I cannot judge weapons' performance against Ordos if they do not fire.  Five battleships got in each others' way, and could not support each other from getting mobbed.

You implied that because I used a bad fleet composition that cannot fire their weapons against the strongest recurring challenge, I cannot judge weapons that I used over a long time in simulations and general campaign play from start to end.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Goumindong on September 11, 2019, 03:04:54 PM
I should clarify the all warship fleets I tried against Ordos were all battleship fleets (like five Paragons).  The only other warships I had available at the time that were not capitals were two Eagles and two Apogees (and one Tempest reserved for pursuit).  I had plenty of carriers and phase ships, though.

Warships unsupported by frigates tend to lose; they get surrounded and are unable to support their own fire. They are also inefficient as you go up in size. Simply in terms of flux/dp. So if you're subtracting ships for bigger ones you not only reduce your ability to get a good concave on them (thus increasing your ability to focus fire) but you're also losing raw power. At the very least you're losing out on 5 officers! And i do recall you espousing the benefits of having 10 officers as one of, if not the best skill in the game.

If you had 3 paragons and 10 Medusa you would have done a LOT better. Or 2 paragaons, 10 Medusa, 2 Aurora. Or 2 Paragaon, 4 Apogee, 4 medusa, 4 Omen, and 5 Tempest. None of these fleets are really pushing out onto the fleet limits, the largest of which is 19. And one of the biggest advantages of high tech ships is that you can retain high mobility as you go up in DP because the ships are comparatively expensive. And because they're able to more efficiently use officers(essentially because higher DP per ship means more total power magnified by your officer corps)

Now its true that carriers scale better than warships in the lategame. The main reason is that carriers are able to focus fire better. But carriers also prevent you from easily leveraging your own player ability because warships require fewer allied skills. (and as a side benefit warships scale better with the earlier skills and have a higher individual power letting you achieve in the early game easier)

If you want to test it and see, maybe cheat in a fleet and a different set of skills and see how you do. Or just try a high tech warship focused game and see how you fare.

Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 12, 2019, 06:16:19 AM
@ Goumindong:  Did few quick fights against an Ordos, by theme.  All had two Dooms since high-tech dominates phase.  By quick fight, I reloaded a save (at the end of a month), built about 600k worth of ships to supplement my capital-heavy stock, and throw some fairly standard loadouts on them.

High Tech with two or three Paragons, Astral, a modified shotgun Odyssey (Squalls instead of MIRVs), two Aurora, two Apogee, two Medusa, two Shrike, two Tempests, and Omen.  Fought against Ordos with two Radiants.  Won but lost about half my fleet.  Turned out I had Full Assault was (on) for most of the fight.  Lost at least one Paragon, one Aurora, one Medusa, and all Shrikes and frigates.  Shotgun Odyssey held its own.  Aurora was quite effective under Aggressive AI (the one I lost was near the end of the fight, overwhelmed by multiple destroyers).  Overall, a pyrrhic victory.

Midline with four Conquests, three Eagles, two Heron, ten (Spark) Drover, two Hammerheads, four Sunder, and a Centurion.  Fought against Ordos with three Rediants.  Thanks to some piloting errors and general incompetence, it was a disaster!  Did not win the fight.

Low Tech with three Onslaughts, Legion, three or four (Spark) Mora, two Dominators, three Enforcers.  Fought against Ordos with three Radiants.  Turned out better than expected.  Lost only two Enforcers, but otherwise, Onslaughts, Spark Mora and Legion, and a single Doom totally destroyed the Ordos (at least as well as my usual Ordos hunter fleet).  Remnants seems more distracted than usual.  Onslaught may normally stink, but if it has support to keep enemies off its back and has a nice juicy enemy battleship in front of it, Onslaught will destroy it very fast.

It seems frigates are too fragile for Ordos, but destroyers may work in their place.

My character only has points in five personal skills (half in Technology) and only four officers.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: TaLaR on September 12, 2019, 06:55:53 AM
My character only has points in five personal skills (half in Technology) and only four officers.

At which point 5 capitals IS the correct deployment. With maybe few optional distraction Omens.
Primary reason to go for more is to properly utilize all officers, which you don't have.

Though I don't understand why would you make such a crippled character, it's neither fleet nor personal focused.
And player piloting matters. Either in form of chain deployed Afflictors or a capital that performs as 2-3 AI controlled ones.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 12, 2019, 08:06:06 AM
@ TaLaR:  I would not need more than four officers if I cannot deploy as many ships as I have officers on the map.  When I started the game, I used map size 300, and could only deploy three big ships at a time (or only two if one is a Paragon).  Only after I got fed up with multi-round duel endurance combat that I finally maxed the size for something resembling a fleet battle.  Now, I would want at least six officers.  Eight would probably be optimal.

I still have 15 or so unspent points.  I have not spent them due to decision paralysis.  Also, nine have been spent on Industry colony skills (and would have spent another three in Planetary Operations to match the faction leaders with 3/3/3).  (I wanted a big empire without using cores.)  Big mistake, but I am not restarting the game to build a more optimal character at this point.  Also, I did not get Navigation at first, but eventually got it after resuming the save after a two month hiatus.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 12, 2019, 01:20:31 PM
If your ships cannot fire weapons, then weapon balance is irrelevant because weapons that do not fire do nothing.  It is more like I had bad fleet composition.  I cannot judge weapons' performance against Ordos if they do not fire.  Five battleships got in each others' way, and could not support each other from getting mobbed.

You implied that because I used a bad fleet composition that cannot fire their weapons against the strongest recurring challenge, I cannot judge weapons that I used over a long time in simulations and general campaign play from start to end.
Good to know, weapon balance is irrelevant because you had a bad fleet composition. Lets just delete all your posts where you write with utter certainty on weapon balance.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Megas on September 12, 2019, 02:12:43 PM
@ Plantissue:  Do you honestly think a single fight against a recent enemy that I tried recently (with a fleet I normally do not use - five battleships and nothing else) and blew up in my face represents all of the combat I have done over the past recent releases?  Most weapons have not changed much since 0.8a aside from light needler and some heavy energy weapons (and maybe few others).  The only thing I did not do much until recently was fight Ordos with Radiants in them.  (Radiants were added in 0.9a, and I did not use cores back then.)  I had no reason to fight them until late in 0.9.1a.  In the meantime, I have played much against other opponents.  I had to try much (maybe not everything, but still a lot) before I settled with ships and weapons I like to use.

And, yes, I will continue to write with certainty about weapon balance.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Limitless on September 12, 2019, 05:16:47 PM
Okay, so a little earlier I went ahead and modded some energy weapons a little to see how the ships would handle. I made the pulse laser a little more efficient, at 100 flux per shot. I made the heavy blaster a little more efficient, at 670 flux per shot. I increased the range of the IR pulse blaster to 600, and I made Mjolnir an energy weapon instead of balistic. I also gave Phase lances the strike tag.

This resulted in the following changes: Ordos are a lot scarier and harder to flux out, aurora consistently beats the other cruisers in sims, which at 30dp, it should. Paragon remains a beast, with or without Mjolnir. Phase lance usage remains unchanged for the most part as far as I can tell. The Apogee also now has a little extra frontal firepower that it can actually use because of the increased range too.

In addition, standard shrike and medusa work better when loaded with IR pulses (instead of ballistics) thanks to all their weapons being in range at the same time, circumventing AI pilot issues.

All high tech frigates are a tad more deadly, but they're also just frigates. However, now they have a reliable small weapon, the medium mounts on Hyperion and Tempest probably be split into 3-4 small energy mounts without too great of an issue.

Further testing is required, of course, but the results I got from my brief tests seem to suggest I had the right idea when I made this thread




Preemptive Edit: Ordos should be terrifying and I don't regret giving them mjolnirs at all. It lets Radiants be a threat even after they jump away, and the EMP effect makes many ships sitting ducks, especially fleeing high tech ships. Storm needlers remain effective.
Title: Re: The Problem of Energy Weapons
Post by: Plantissue on September 14, 2019, 09:28:46 AM
@ Plantissue:  Do you honestly think a single fight against a recent enemy that I tried recently (with a fleet I normally do not use - five battleships and nothing else) and blew up in my face represents all of the combat I have done over the past recent releases?  Most weapons have not changed much since 0.8a aside from light needler and some heavy energy weapons (and maybe few others).  The only thing I did not do much until recently was fight Ordos with Radiants in them.  (Radiants were added in 0.9a, and I did not use cores back then.)  I had no reason to fight them until late in 0.9.1a.  In the meantime, I have played much against other opponents.  I had to try much (maybe not everything, but still a lot) before I settled with ships and weapons I like to use.

And, yes, I will continue to write with certainty about weapon balance.
I don't really see the point you are making about your whole business that you prefer a fleet full of carriers instead of deploying 5 paragons. (With 500 battlesize, they should win with the deployment point advantage irregardless.) What has that got to do with energy weapons?