Print

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

[Thaago]

Let's not forget that there used to be an incremental boost to energy damage at higher flux levels. IIRC it boosted up to an extra 50% flux.

But most energy weapons that were not EMP had their DPS were raised by about 25% to compensate.  Pulse Lasers got more than 25% and became worth using.  Few got less, including Mining Blaster, which got hurt.

Mining blaster and heavy blaster are still just as efficient as something like assault chaingun against armor though (further buffs would make them insanely good as anti-armor). They have really high per-shot, making them by definition more efficient as anti-armor weapons.

Basically, heavy blaster and mining blaster looks awful due to their flux efficiency but are actually in reality quite strong as anti-capital/cruiser weapons. Mining + heavy blasters + plasma cannons are actually the HE of energy weapons.

For example, against 1000 armor targets

Heavy Blaster initially hits the armor at 50% reduction (500/1000=0.5). Its flux-damage ratio is 250/720=34.7

Mining blaster initially hits the armor at 30% reduction (700/1000=0.7). Its flux-damage ratio is actually 245/600=0.4083

Chaingun initially hits armor at 88% reduction (60*2/1000). Its flux to damage ratio is 48/400=0.12

Mauler initially hits armor at 60% reduction (400/1000). Its flux to damage ratio is 80/225=0.355

The armor formula for reduction is (damage)/(armor + damage) before other modifiers, so the details aren't quite as you post. However the point is still completely valid: Heavy blasters and Plasma Cannons are relatively poor vs shields but are significantly more flux efficient vs armor than many other weapons.

Easy solution to make energy weapons more competitive VS ballistic: they just need to be more damaging at shorter range of impact. If the listed damage was what you deal at max range but they dealt +33% when hitting a target directly next to the muzzle, they would get a nasty kick. And it would both play to the strength of mid/high tech ships since they are more mobile, and de-incentivize kiting strategies.

This would be interesting - I wonder if it would be best as a property of energy damage in general, or a special weapon property for the "bolt" type energy weapons.

[xenoargh]

Hmm, that sounds viable as a buff to replace the old Flux Overload mechanic, which I never cared for much.

I already did that with Beam weapons and it didn't break things.  I'll give it a go with Energy weapons. 

Probably a range from 1.0 to 3.0 (at point-blank, basically would only come up with Fighters; more often we're talking about 1.5 at most if face-hugging).

They still feel a little weak-sauce in Rebal, but I don't want to push their core DPS efficiency up more, mainly because of outlier cases.  It'd provide a reason for High Tech to want to get close, even if it's still usually a Bad Idea.

[intrinsic_parity]

I remember there was a discussion of beams a while ago where I suggested they have a range where they do max damage and do decreasing damage as you get further from that range.

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11524.msg196593#msg196593

That could be applied to all energy weapons. Having them be efficient/comparable to kinetics at close range and inefficient at long range would make them much more versatile. As long as kinetics maintain a range advantage, I think it could be pretty balanced. But it would require some AI adjustments.

[xenoargh]

I took a look at this, and a modification of this idea will be in the next Rebal Pack.  It certainly made Energy an interesting set of conundrums; you want damage, you need to get close, but if you get close in High Tech, your fragility works against you.  It really helps Midline shine, though.

[mehgamer]

Easy solution to make energy weapons more competitive VS ballistic: they just need to be more damaging at shorter range of impact. If the listed damage was what you deal at max range but they dealt +33% when hitting a target directly next to the muzzle, they would get a nasty kick. And it would both play to the strength of mid/high tech ships since they are more mobile, and de-incentivize kiting strategies.

I don't know if it's an "easy" solution due to the untested nature of the idea, but I kind of agree it'd help enforce the intended niche of energy weapons.  Perhaps if it's possible to design a mod to do this as a testing platform, and to see how it would fair in balancing?

Also worth considering is whether or not this specific mechanic affects beam weapons, and in what way, since they tend to work as "energy adjacent" and have differing damage types to boot.

Hmm, that sounds viable as a buff to replace the old Flux Overload mechanic, which I never cared for much.

I already did that with Beam weapons and it didn't break things.  I'll give it a go with Energy weapons.  

Probably a range from 1.0 to 3.0 (at point-blank, basically would only come up with Fighters; more often we're talking about 1.5 at most if face-hugging).

They still feel a little weak-sauce in Rebal, but I don't want to push their core DPS efficiency up more, mainly because of outlier cases.  It'd provide a reason for High Tech to want to get close, even if it's still usually a Bad Idea.

3x is astoundingly great for a game like this.  A 33% increase in damage against armor can grant far greater upticks in damage, and going too far would just make HE irrelevant in a macro scale.  A weapon that deals 300 damage in a hit against an enemy with 500 armor suffers a DR coefficient of .375 (300/(300+500)) while boosting that by the given 33% example would make the coefficient .44 (400/(400+500)), resulting in a 58% increase in resulting damage (300x.375 v 400x.44, or 112.5 v 177.77).  This is already roughly double the listed 33%, and consecutive hits compound this exponentially (until the armor is effectively shredded to minimal values, which reduces the effects back down to the listed 33% approximately and creating a misshapen parabola).

Meanwhile if the damage is tripled we find the coefficient going from .375 to .64 (900/(900+500)), which is a dramatic 412% (300x.375 v 900x.64, or 112.5 v 576) increase in damage.  Your 300 damage hit just did more damage than an anti-matter blaster to that armor plating.

Of course, this matters less once you get past armor.  But armor is a core mechanic of this game, and we can't ignore how important it is to balancing.

[Megas]

I tend to use beams on midline ships that have kinetics to put hard flux on shields.  Most high-tech ships I use have non-beams for damage because they have no other way to put hard flux on shields.  (Thus, most of my fleet is low-tech or midline, aside from few overpowered units like Hyperion or Paragon.)  Occasionally, I may use heavy blaster and tactical laser as a substitute for two pulse lasers (on a Tempest or Medusa) because the former have roughly the same DPS as the latter for significantly less OP cost.

Damage that varies by range would be great for Hyperion because it can easily teleport and bypass shields of any opponent.

[TrashMan]

Hmm, that sounds viable as a buff to replace the old Flux Overload mechanic, which I never cared for much.

I already did that with Beam weapons and it didn't break things.  I'll give it a go with Energy weapons. 

Probably a range from 1.0 to 3.0 (at point-blank, basically would only come up with Fighters; more often we're talking about 1.5 at most if face-hugging).

They still feel a little weak-sauce in Rebal, but I don't want to push their core DPS efficiency up more, mainly because of outlier cases.  It'd provide a reason for High Tech to want to get close, even if it's still usually a Bad Idea.

I'd rather that damage falloff/buff be a variable that can be set for each weapon, rather than being a hard-coded property of energy weapons.
Would be nice to have a long-range beam who's schtick is that it DOES NOT have that damage falloff.

The simplest way I can think off would be another field in the weapons file - a falloff factor determined by max range (or flight time for missiles?). Can be positive or negative.

You could - for example - make an exotic missile that builds up charge as it goes along. Excellent artillery, but damage drops down sharply up close.

[xenoargh]

All those fancy mechanics are possible, sure.  I just wanted to try out a quick idea.

3x is astoundingly great for a game like this.  A 33% increase in damage against armor can grant far greater upticks in damage, and going too far would just make HE irrelevant in a macro scale.  A weapon that deals 300 damage in a hit against an enemy with 500 armor suffers a DR coefficient of .375 (300/(300+500)) while boosting that by the given 33% example would make the coefficient .44 (400/(400+500)), resulting in a 58% increase in resulting damage (300x.375 v 400x.44, or 112.5 v 177.77).  This is already roughly double the listed 33%, and consecutive hits compound this exponentially (until the armor is effectively shredded to minimal values, which reduces the effects back down to the listed 33% approximately and creating a misshapen parabola).

Actually, when tested, it really didn't feel all that awesome.  It just ended up being an OK buff, tbh.  Energy weapons didn't become godly.

This seems counter-intuitive, I know, but:

1.  Other than the Heavy Blaster and Plasma Cannon, there's nothing that does that much Energy damage in Vanilla.  Because of how that scales vs. armor, it's much less egregious than you'd think.

2.  You'd be surprised how little combat is at point-blank unless it's the player running in.  The AI prefers to kite.  So the biggest winner was the player using the effect intelligently.  Writing the AI to make it smart enough to deal with that would be somewhat tricky, though; most Beam Boats need to keep their distance.

3.  The biggest winners were Beams used up close, where they offered a moderately-decent assault option.  But they weren't out-performing Kinetic or HE vs. shields or armor, even with the bonus.

[MesoTroniK]

I'd rather that damage falloff/buff be a variable that can be set for each weapon, rather than being a hard-coded property of energy weapons.
Would be nice to have a long-range beam who's schtick is that it DOES NOT have that damage falloff.

The simplest way I can think off would be another field in the weapons file - a falloff factor determined by max range (or flight time for missiles?). Can be positive or negative.

You could - for example - make an exotic missile that builds up charge as it goes along. Excellent artillery, but damage drops down sharply up close.

The problem with damage falloff for beams is there isn't really a way to visualize it.

For projectiles and missiles, you can but it would require direct sprite render trickery. Missile damage fall off can be done in a custom missile AI, projectile damage falloff can be done in a everyframe script, just like damage fall off beams can also be done now.

Hm, it might be possible to visualize beam damage falloff... But it would be tricky, custom quad strip renderer or something (like vanilla missile trails) but a custom implementation. Something like that is *very* difficult to make though.

[TrashMan]

The problem with damage falloff for beams is there isn't really a way to visualize it.

Alter beam color?
Since when is it even NECESSARY?
You already know the damage falls off and the range of your beam weapon, does the game need to spell out everything?

[Megas]

2.  You'd be surprised how little combat is at point-blank unless it's the player running in.  The AI prefers to kite.  So the biggest winner was the player using the effect intelligently.  Writing the AI to make it smart enough to deal with that would be somewhat tricky, though; most Beam Boats need to keep their distance.

Unless the player pilots a very fast ship (that does not lose the flux war as soon as it is shot at), getting close to cowardly AI ships and forcing fights is hard.

Damage that varies by range sounds on par Jets drifting and Drive cancelling techniques that only the player could exploit effectively, and were removed (or toned down in case of vent spamming) to be fair to the AI.

[MesoTroniK]

The problem with damage falloff for beams is there isn't really a way to visualize it.

Alter beam color?
Since when is it even NECESSARY?
You already know the damage falls off and the range of your beam weapon, does the game need to spell out everything?

Well, I always believe in transparent mechanics when possible

If say a beam does less damage at range? It should be observably visible, even without damage numbers. Like the visual intensity reduces as it travels farther or something and that would also look really cool.

[TrashMan]

Well, I always believe in transparent mechanics when possible

-30% damage after half range in the description should be enough.
You have a visible indicator for weapon range. You know where half is.

You also have visible damage numbers.

If say a beam does less damage at range? It should be observably visible, even without damage numbers. Like the visual intensity reduces as it travels farther or something and that would also look really cool.

Increase the beam whiteness the closer (or further, depending on damage falloff factor) the beam impact point (target) is. Brighter beam = more power.
A beam already has a RGB/I values defined.