Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ClosetGoth]

This is a simple suggestion, but it still needs to be said.

Currently, we have no energy weapons that deal high explosive damage. What if we had a weapon that shot beams of radiation that caused cascading combustion of particles that it impacted, similar to nuclear weapons? I'm just pulling this out of my ass here, and I don't know if my attempt at reasoning how the weapon could work is accurate at all, but that's not the point!

We need energy weapons that deal High Explosive damage! (And probably more that do kinetic!)

[Zapier]

Maybe I'll be asking the obvious here... but shouldn't you just get an explosive weapon if you want an explosive weapon instead of an energy weapon? You also mentioned something that does kinetic too... well, get a kinetic weapon? You left out wanting an energy burst weapon that deals fragmentation damage and a machine gun turret that deals energy damage.

The point of energy weapons are to cause energy damage... explosive weapons to cause explosive damage, etc. If both ballistic and energy mounts get access to shared weaponry types more readily, then might as well make every position universal.

[arwan]

i agree with the OP there are ships that do not have ballistic hard points or turrets. so it would be nice to see a little more crossover.

[Iscariot]

One of the advantages of using ballistics or missiles over energy is exactly how versatile they are, I don't think that Starfarer should take that away from the good 'ol substance weapons. They're not supposed to be exactly the same thing, except with a 'pew pew' aesthetic over a 'blam blam' aesthetic, if you know what I mean.

Energy weapons tend toward better accuracy, and messing shields up, plus sustainability. Ballistics and missiles can be spent, and more often than not don't meet their mark, but they have whoopass and low flux to make up for it.

[Flare]

Energy weapons tend toward better accuracy, and messing shields up, plus sustainability. Ballistics and missiles can be spent, and more often than not don't meet their mark, but they have whoopass and low flux to make up for it.

I've found the way to totally nullify the inaccuracy of ballistics weapons is to fly right up to knife fighting range and let the guns do their work there. It's simply a great feeling when you pull it off well- your lasher with it's dual machine guns at point blank overloading the medusa's shields, and finishing them off with some harpoons .

[Iscariot]

Yeah, although that gets real risky with bigger ships, since their deaths will straight murder anything too small and too close. Small wonder why low tech ships tend to have such great armor and short ranged weapons.

[Dreyven]

Energy weapons tend toward messing shields up

Let me just quote you totally out of context...
Why do people always say that energy weapons are good at killing shields?
actually, compared to nearly all Ballistic weapons, they are actually quite bad


on topic: i would keep it as it is, that's the point of having different weapons

[Iscariot]

At least, that seems to be the stated purpose of the Graviton beam, one of the more commonly found energy weapons. I admit to not paying the most attention to energy weapons.

EDIT: Yeah, on second thought, you're totally right. Energy weapons are more 'general purpose' weapons, given their percentages to various defenses, and they ARE much more accurate, which makes them the best kind of point defense and anti fighter/frigate weaponry.

[ClosetGoth]

(snip)
If both ballistic and energy mounts get access to shared weaponry types more readily, then might as well make every position universal.

On the contrary, adding more crossover allows for greater flexibility while retaining weapon type limits. Energy weapons are still (in general) very accurate and quick, but with low DPS for their flux costs. I think your point is a little extreme, as a balance in crossover is needed. If we add hundreds of wildly varying weapons for all types, we would lose the point of different slot types. But, I think we haven't reached the right balance yet, in terms of energy weapons. Currently, energy weapon slots are very limited, as the options available are mostly in the form of differing range and firing style (constant beam, burst beam, rapid-fire projectile, slow-fire projectile). The graviton beam is the ONLY vanilla energy weapon that doesn't do energy damage.

[arwan]

also want to point out that any "beam" weapon is far and away weaker than any other comparative DPS weapon because its damage is actively vented by shields. so my 200 DPS laser does no damage to a ship with shields up and enough vents to vent 200 flux or more per second.

as in i could hit it with 200DPS all day and NEVER get threw the shields because the target NEVER needs to drop them to vent flux.

[ArthropodOfDoom]

Maybe I'll be asking the obvious here... but shouldn't you just get an explosive weapon if you want an explosive weapon instead of an energy weapon? You also mentioned something that does kinetic too... well, get a kinetic weapon? You left out wanting an energy burst weapon that deals fragmentation damage and a machine gun turret that deals energy damage.

The point of energy weapons are to cause energy damage... explosive weapons to cause explosive damage, etc. If both ballistic and energy mounts get access to shared weaponry types more readily, then might as well make every position universal.

Well, yes, all of this might seem a little weird, but then we are stuck with Onslaught-class ships that can only deal explosive or fragmentation damage. However, this is not at all the case. There are multiple kinetic/high-explosive/fragmentation weapons that fit ballistic slots, and I think the Mjolnir cannon is energy, but more crossover everywhere is just awesome. Energy weapons refer to generally high flux costs and generally beam like weapons, where ballistics refer to actual slugs/shells/objects being fired at things, and so on and so on. Having different mounts, with the ability to have different damage types on each of these mounts (without even mentioning attack types--that would take up more space) in order to have many, MANY ship types.

[Iscariot]

I disagree completely. All crossover does is make things universally bland. As I said earlier, there ought to be an appreciable difference between ballistics, missiles, and beams-- a SIGNIFICANT appreciable difference. It shouldn't just be a palette swap of pew pew for blam blam or vice versa.

[ClosetGoth]

I disagree completely. All crossover does is make things universally bland. As I said earlier, there ought to be an appreciable difference between ballistics, missiles, and beams-- a SIGNIFICANT appreciable difference. It shouldn't just be a palette swap of pew pew for blam blam or vice versa.

And like you, I want to keep unique traits for different weapon types! Adding just one or two high-explosive energy weapons wouldn't make ballistic weapons obsolete, or make them blend together.

General traits for energy weapons:
- Quick/instant projectiles
- Low DPS/flux ratio
- Above average flux costs
- Medium to high range (this trait has the most variation)
- Infinite ammo
- Either continuous fire or a long recharge
- Damage dealt to shields can be vented without lowering shields

General traits for ballistic weapons:
- Medium-slow to medium-fast projectiles
- Medium-high DPS/flux ratio
- Low flux costs (except for HE weapons)
- Low to medium range (again, this trait has the most outliers)
- Limited ammo (even machine guns use all 999 rounds in a couple minutes)
- Slow automatic fire or burst fire, (exempting small PD weapons)

And, for the heck of it:

General traits for missile weapons:
- Slow to medium-slow projectiles
- Minuscule flux costs, if any
- Medium to extreme range
- Very limited ammo
- Either slow firing (I consider 1/sec to be slow for a weapon) or very, very slow firing


My point is that each weapon type has traits that allow it to be unique, while filling varying roles. One example would be a ship with Graviton Beams versus a ship with Autocannons, or Sabot SRM Launchers. Each setup is tailored to a different style of fighting, yet each weapon deals the same type of damage. The Graviton Beams are great anti-strafing weapons, overloading and suppressing agile frigates. The Autocannons encourage persistent attacks to overload shields, more suited to bigger destroyers and cruisers picking on ships of their own size. And, the Sabot SRM Launchers quickly overload shields, complementing strike weapons on heavier Frigates and lighter Destroyers, as they attack larger targets then themselves.

[Iscariot]

I suppose we have differing evaluations on the import of the ammo issue. For me, the ammo is the Achilles heel to the versatility of ballistics, and the two are intrinsically paired-- guns fire rounds, which is why you can have different kinds of stuff happen with those rounds. It's part of their appeal against energy weapons. I'm frankly uncomfortable with even the Graviton beam dealing kinetic damage, though I guess I understand what Alex was going for there.

[ClosetGoth]

Okay, so I understand that we have differing values in terms of the weapons.

You value how the downsides of ballistic weapons are balanced by their versatility, and how the limited-use of energy weapons is balanced by their overall competence and reliability. So, you don't want energy weapons to become too versatile, dropping the value of ballistic weapons. You feel it is balanced as-is (or just that you feel more crossover does not increase balance).

I value the different traits of ballistic and energy weapons, but am disappointed with the lack of crossover in energy weapons, and feel limited by it. I feel that it is unbalanced, with energy weapons being too weak due to their high specialization.

I think I understand your side now, and will happily agree to disagree!