Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.  (Read 5968 times)

evil713

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile

This would be a simple change with far reaching consequences. Missile ammunition will be affected by ship size, a multplyer.

So using the standard three-shot harpoon launcher a frigate would still only have three shots inherently, but a destroyer would have a multplyer of 2, and have Six harpoon missiles to fire. Cruisers would have a multplyer of 3 thus 9 missiles, and battleships would have a multplyer of 4 thus 12 missiles.

This gives larger ships more endurance in missile battles and incentvising smaller ships to carry heavier ordnance like torpedoes.

Now this does leave some launchers with some balance issues, specifically large mount missile launchers which are rarely found on ships smaller than a cruiser would need there inherent ammo reduced in this system. This issue also creeps into medium launchers, for example the 5 shot reaper launcher or any of the 12 ammo missile pods, giving a battleship 20 reaper or 48 harpoon missiles in stock.

A possible solution to this would be to cap the multiplier at 3 X. So Cruisers and battleships would share the same modifier for ammo increase, making it a tad more manageable.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2017, 12:02:39 AM »

Just makes limited missiles even more useless for frigates than they currently are.
They are only good in throwaway AI vs AI battles like tournament where you don't care about losses or necessity to be survivable against superior enemy and can't use your superior piloting skill.
Or on player-piloted Afflictor with Reapers.
Frigates already have about half CR of next size class, no need to punish them further.

Also, if you have enough missiles to continue firing during most of your CR time, situations where you actually care about them being finite would be quite rare.
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2017, 03:37:27 AM »

Redundant; mount size is the means of discriminating between weapon ammo capacities.

Also, SS needs fewer missiles flying around, not more!
Logged

Althaea

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2017, 04:08:38 AM »

Basically, a small mount is a small mount whether you find it on an Onslaught or a Lasher. Ammo's included with that. Given the same number of ordnance points it already should be - and four-six OP is about as much as a small mount should be. Low-ammo variants that cost 1-2 OP are already a thing. If you want a bit more endurance, get expanded missile racks - that should give you more than enough breathing room for what missiles are actually meant to do. If you did boost the missile supply of bigger ships as suggested, do note that this would, for example, allow an Enforcer to cart around forty-eight sabots or sixteen reapers. Or twenty-four sabots and eight reapers, for that matter.

With a few exceptions (Swarmers for PD, Javelins, Salamanders, and depending on how you use them Annihilators for support), missiles are simply not meant to be a sustainable weapon (barring perhaps a Gryphon-mounted Squall). There's only one ship in the game that innately focuses on missiles to the detriment of other weapon types, that being the aforementioned Gryphon which was designed in an epoch where naval strategist favoured heavily specialized designs. Basically, weapons in Starsector are modular, and as a consequence it doesn't make a lot of sense for larger ships with the same modules to function differently (unless they are specifically designed to do so, as with the Gryphon or Condor).

Beyond that, more missiles are really not needed, especially since the number of missiles a lot of ships come with are already more than enough to instantly turn the course of a duel if applied correctly. And of course, I imagine most people have been overloaded at least once within the midst of a group of missile-armed AI frigates and promptly turned into dead meat.

Consider the Harpoon - yes, one rack only has three shots, or six, and it's easy to throw them away to no effect, but the whole idea with missiles is that you use them at precisely the right them for the right job to an overwhelming effect. Harpoons, Hammers and Reapers grant tremendous damage potential versus unshielded, overloaded or flanked targets (and the torpedoes can sometimes be used to put the enemy between a rock and a hard place if their flux is already high and they can't block the torpedo without overloading). A Lasher armed with any of these can pose a serious threat to much larger ships as a result. I would strongly disagree with TaLaR - they're not just for AI vs AI only battles. I suspect he misspoke and was more specifically referring to the Tournament's infamous missile-centric-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else strategies, which would indeed fall flat if you found yourself even moderately outnumbered. Otherwise, as long as the numbers are within a 1:3 ratio, you can always have enough missiles for them to fulfill their intended role.

At any rate, small missile mounts work nearly as well for big ships as they do for small ones. The burst they provide is universally useful, especially considering the high rate of fire and lack of flux cost - there are no ships in the game that can simply ignore a trio of sabots or a single reaper. Medium and large missile mounts - if available - provide all the extra desired capability on a ship-by-ship basis. And the Expanded Missile Racks hullmod doubles the ammo capacity of your missile launchers for a very reasonable cost in ordnance points. On a larger ship, that's as close as you can get to sustainable missile use, and it's as close as the game can really allow you to get to it without them dominating the game.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 04:18:44 AM by alguLoD »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2017, 07:04:46 AM »

I think there should be more missiles, or least missiles like Locusts or Blackrock's Darts.  Currently, fighters are better (homing) missiles than missiles.  Most of my cruisers and capitals get Converted Hangar and a wing of fighters (instead of missiles) because they are better than regenerators.

I tend to put missiles either as filler on disposable ships (Harpoons on recovered Falcon (D)) or defensive wall on various ships (e.g., Annihilators on Enforcers).  If I do not have room for filler, missiles are the first to go because they are either too unreliable or too situational.
Logged

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2017, 01:21:54 PM »

Currently missiles are both too strong and too weak at once and all of it because of limited ammo. Because ammo is so harshly limited, they've been designed for giant-flux-less burst that is extremely binary. If it works, it's often a kill, if it doesn't you are now down a lot of OP and several weapon mounts. Because missiles are limited, the most efficient defense is shields, not PD since mounting PD means when the opponent runs out of missiles you are also down a lot of OP and mounts. If you mounted actual weapons and just used flux (or built in ship systems) to counter the missiles you didn't have to spend a single OP on a weapon that will be less effective when your opponent is out of missiles.

If you bump down the spammability of missiles and make them infinite you don't just make missiles more attractive you also make PD more attractive. Note that the fact that fighters are now infinite ammo missiles and PD is suddenly a lot more important - and had to get (mostly) buffed because now people are actually starting to mount it and need it to function. That's also hurt the non-infinite (non-fighter) missiles even more, because now there's better PD and it's actually being put on ships - but missile mount missiles are still extremely binary and limited.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 01:24:19 PM by DatonKallandor »
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2017, 01:45:22 PM »

I'd prefer the opposite c.c
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2017, 02:33:20 PM »

Currently missiles are both too strong and too weak at once and all of it because of limited ammo. Because ammo is so harshly limited, they've been designed for giant-flux-less burst that is extremely binary. If it works, it's often a kill, if it doesn't you are now down a lot of OP and several weapon mounts. Because missiles are limited, the most efficient defense is shields, not PD since mounting PD means when the opponent runs out of missiles you are also down a lot of OP and mounts. If you mounted actual weapons and just used flux (or built in ship systems) to counter the missiles you didn't have to spend a single OP on a weapon that will be less effective when your opponent is out of missiles.

If you bump down the spammability of missiles and make them infinite you don't just make missiles more attractive you also make PD more attractive. Note that the fact that fighters are now infinite ammo missiles and PD is suddenly a lot more important - and had to get (mostly) buffed because now people are actually starting to mount it and need it to function. That's also hurt the non-infinite (non-fighter) missiles even more, because now there's better PD and it's actually being put on ships - but missile mount missiles are still extremely binary and limited.

You'd have to massively rework both missile balance and PD balance in such a system. That doesn't immediately disqualify the suggestion but I don't think that's for the better. Ultimately, individual missile strength would have to come down so instead of a harpoon doing 750, it does 300 and has half the projectile HP to compensate. PD wouldn't be buffed, it would just be made more effective relative to what we have now. If you buffed PD, they become too effective in in non-PD roles: the Vulcan is a testament to that.

As it is, missiles are working intended, IMO. Great openers, finishers, and non-flux DPS. Make them more spam-y and you end up watering them down and turning them into just another weapon.

As for the OP's idea, I agree with the others: ammo is already tied to mount sizes. Expanded Missile Racks double it so I don't see a problem, really. The only thing that I wish we could do is fire off Medium Harpoon/Sabot Pods one-at-a-time, if we wanted. There are times where the burst of 4 is overkill. If you could somehow do a single vs. burst setting (mid-battle), that would be helpful.
Logged

cjuicy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Figuring out how the hell to wear heels (She/it)
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2017, 03:36:22 PM »

I want to see a large Harpoon/Sabot pod.
Logged
It's been a long time, but I still love ya!

- Pfp done by Sleepyfish!

Mr. Nobody

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2017, 03:59:36 PM »

I want to see a large Harpoon/Sabot pod.
Look no further
Spoiler
[close]
Logged
On the left half of the Bell curve

evil713

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2017, 11:07:14 PM »

You could do magazine style reloads then, fire off the clip then long reload.
Logged

Tartiflette

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3529
  • MagicLab discord: https://discord.gg/EVQZaD3naU
    • View Profile
Logged
 

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2017, 09:04:29 AM »

You'd have to massively rework both missile balance and PD balance in such a system. That doesn't immediately disqualify the suggestion but I don't think that's for the better. Ultimately, individual missile strength would have to come down so instead of a harpoon doing 750, it does 300 and has half the projectile HP to compensate. PD wouldn't be buffed, it would just be made more effective relative to what we have now. If you buffed PD, they become too effective in in non-PD roles: the Vulcan is a testament to that.

As it is, missiles are working intended, IMO. Great openers, finishers, and non-flux DPS. Make them more spam-y and you end up watering them down and turning them into just another weapon.

As for the OP's idea, I agree with the others: ammo is already tied to mount sizes. Expanded Missile Racks double it so I don't see a problem, really. The only thing that I wish we could do is fire off Medium Harpoon/Sabot Pods one-at-a-time, if we wanted. There are times where the burst of 4 is overkill. If you could somehow do a single vs. burst setting (mid-battle), that would be helpful.

If the way you nerf missiles is by changing their damage yes you'd have to re-do everything even remotely connected to missiles. But you don't have to do nerf them that way. You can keep their damage and use their re-fire rate and the clip mechanics to stop them from ever being dead OP, without having to rebalance everything. But honestly, with fighters working the way they do, PD effectiveness is now a real balance concern that gets attention and fixes, so changing missile mechanics for yourself is a lot less work than it used to be now. As long as there's infinite fighters Alex will make sure PD works, and as long as PD works I can do my infinite missile mod with a minimum of fuss.

On the OPs suggestion of tying missile count to the ship size, I agree with others here that it would probably lead to more problems than it solves. You'd end up with some missiles that are crap unless mounted on ships of a certain size among other issues. Especially torpedoes could get real silly - and many of the current burst damage missiles have practically no re-fire delay, so any ammo increase would bump up their burst to a huge degree.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 09:06:55 AM by DatonKallandor »
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2017, 02:14:03 AM »

But you don't have to do nerf them that way. You can keep their damage and use their re-fire rate and the clip mechanics to stop them from ever being dead OP, without having to rebalance everything.
Unpopular opinions:
This is how I did it when I went through the tables and added regen onto everything. (Except without clips for the most part as I find them annoying to actually use).
Spoiler
Regen rate is based off two things:
  • The damage output of a single "shot" of the weapon
  • The size of the mount the weapon requires
It also helps a LOT to put cooldown times on things like Sabots to make them less horrifically brutal.

Regen rate = m/dmg
Where "m" is a general multiplier which I currently have set to 36.
Small mounts = base rate
Med mounts = base * 1.5
Large mounts = base * 2.5

Increasing "m" makes everything slower.
m/dmg gives you the number you enter into the tables for smalls. (multiply as above for med & lrg.)
Multiply that by 60 to get the rounds per minute "r".
60/r gives you the time you have to wait for one shot to reload.

Harpoon in a small mount will reload one shot in approx. 21 seconds. Medium 14s. Large (if it existed) 8s.
36/750 = 0.048
*60 = 2.88
2.88/60 = 20.83
*1.5 = 13.88 (med)
*2.5 = 8.33 (lrg)

Reaper in a small mount will reload one shot in approx. 110 seconds. Medium 74s. Large 44s.
36/4000 = 0.009
*60 = 0.54
0.54/60 = 111.11
*1.5 = 74.07 (med)
*2.5 = 44.44 (lrg)

[close]

If you really really wanted to make missile capacity even more dependant on ship size than sml/med/lrg mounts do, the least terrible way to do it would be via changing the missile racks hullmod.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Missile ammo a function of ship size, ie bigger ship more missiles.
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2017, 06:45:40 AM »

Don't forget that the proposed 'rebalance' with less burst and typical regen makes missiles essentially similar to fighters and much more similar to how regular guns work now. Some missiles have homing and all can be intercepted with PD, but you've removed their uniqueness. We don't need more respawning damage vs. PD, PD is already both worth more and in a spot of trouble now with how much more fighters and fighter ordnance it has to handle.

Would it be better balance-wise? I dunno. It sounds boring to me. Right now you have the threat of a heavy burst on one side and you have the odd value problem on the other, where you'd put a bunch of three-shot missiles onto a large-size ship instead of, say, LAGs or Railguns and find that ship at 50% capacity after it has let loose a salvo or two. They may be in an odd spot, but nothing's fundamentally broken.

It wouldn't be a horrible idea to make missile ammo work on a gradient for ship sizes like 100/133/166/200 %. 1x/2x/3x/4x is a tad much. And only if that included downsizing some weapons accordingly, by reducing ammo for the various Annihilator platforms as well as some of the large missile ones - they only fit onto cruiser+ sizes anyway, excluding mods.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 06:47:22 AM by Schwartz »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2