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 3 ... 7

Author Topic: Burst PD Changes (and Cruiser chat)  (Read 7405 times)

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Burst PD Changes (and Cruiser chat)
« on: March 18, 2020, 08:23:28 AM »

The "worst weapon in vanilla" topic got me thinking about the Heavy Burst Laser (which was mentioned no small number of times) but, really, every kind of burst PD.

Disclaimer: Burst PD has been talked about for years. It is intended to be to inferior to ballistic PD because of the design philosophies of high-tech vs. low-tech. This has been reiterated countless times and at no point do I intend to make burst PD "better" than Flak or whatnot.

That being said, Burst PD has not evolved at the same rate as the game around it. The proliferation of fighters (with shields), decoy flares, and carriers, in general, has made Burst PD a very expensive PD option with little upside compared to lower-cost PD Lasers and IPDAI-outfitted ships.

Problem #1 - High OP Cost

Burst PD of all size varieties (I'm including the Paladin, also) are all very costly to mount. At 7, 11, and 18 OP, respectively, they are "elite-tier" options of point defense but don't provide the same level of PD protection as their Ballistic cousins. Burst PD (small) costs only 1 OP less than a Flak Cannon and though I grant it's in a more ubiquitous Small mount, it is vastly inferior per OP.

Comparing Burst PD to say a PD Laser, the amount gained for nearly twice the OP is relatively small. For the first three bursts, yes, burst PD comes out ahead: usually wiping out a missile or mine immediately vs. the DoT effect of PD lasers. Once ammo runs out, burst pd obviously loses its luster, but "burst" is its namesake so you kind of know what you're getting!

The issue, for me, is that Burst PD is not "better" than normal PD Lasers, just different. You're front-loading its effectiveness at the trade-off for poorer sustained effectiveness. However, the price tag on Burst PD communicates that it is "better," and not just a little, but by nearly 2x as much.

The same could be said of the Heavy Burst PD, but there isn't a Medium Energy PD option outside of it to compare it to. Trying to compare it to Dual-Flak (costing 1 more OP) is a bad comparison: they're designed for two different things. However, 11 OP for the medium version, which is only marginally better than the small version, is too much.

Problem #2 - Too Easily Saturated

Because of Burst PD's front-loaded effectiveness, it tends to be especially vulnerable to PD saturation techniques like decoy flares, overwhelming fighter screens, or mass-missile attacks. Flares, especially, completely negate Burst PD effectiveness, forcing them to expend their precious charges in vain. Outside of equipping your ship(s) with IPDAI, Burst PD will always be drastically reduced in effectiveness should an opponent bring a single fighter wing with flares.

While PD Lasers also fall prey to PD saturation techniques, they are at least equally effective once the saturation diminishes. Your PD/LRPD Lasers will continue to do full DPS once the flares go away. The Burst PD will not.

Problem #3 - Shielded Fighters

All Energy PD is vulnerable to this because all Energy PD only deals soft flux. Burst PD does have the ability to overwhelm shield emitters on Fighters but once the charges are spent, they have little chance of doing actual damage. Like PD Saturation, fighters with shields have a distinct advantage when facing Burst PD because they remove the maximum effectiveness of the PD early on.

Solution #1 - Lower OP Costs

The easiest solution is lower the OP Costs of Burst PD. Reduce the small variant to 5 OP and medium variant to 8. The Paladin is fine at 18 but its issues don't lie in its cost.

Of all the solutions presented, this is the one I'm least fond of. I'd rather see Burst PD remain "elite" and rare and worth its cost.

Solution #2 - Burst PD automatically ignores Flares

As part of the "elite" status of Burst PD, have all versions automatically ignore flares. Call it a lesser form of IPDAI that is built-in, Burst PD would be immune to PD Saturation techniques that rob them of their initial advantage.

Solution #3 - Heavy Burst PD increased recharge rate

At present, the only advantage Heavy Burst has over the smaller variant is a slightly higher damage per burst and 2 more initial charges. I don't believe it justifies its extra 5 OP to mount. It needs more to distinguish itself from regular Burst PD.

The thought here is that it stays the same but recharges like the Paladin (i.e. 1 per second, rather than 1 per 2 seconds like present). This gives the Heavy Burst much greater sustained presence after the initial burst. This would have the side effect of giving it an additional 1-2 bursts during the initial discharge because it will recharge as it fires.

Solution #4 - Burst PD Lasers do hard flux to Fighter shields

However you want to explain it in-game, Burst PD would not be as vulnerable to shielded fighters as PD Lasers. Their burst lasers would have the added bonus of debilitating shielded fighters but not have the same effect against actual ships. While Burst PD would still have to expend their initial volleys on shielded fighters, at least their shots wouldn't be completely in vain: either overloading fighters or forcing them to drop shields and take the hit.

Solution #5 - Paladin flux cost reduction

The Paladin could use its flux cost heavily reduced. The Devastator is the only other Large PD option and at 290 Flux/sec, it also has the added benefit of doing HE damage against other ships and hard flux against shields. The Paladin costs more flux and does far less. My suggestion is drop it to ~200 flux/sec in full burst fire.

Overall

Outside of the OP cost reduction, I think all the other solutions could be implemented at the current OP costs. For their costs, Burst PD would be elite-level PD options that are straight-up superior to PD Lasers but are not as consistent. I also don't think Burst PD would be superior to Ballistic versions, though they would be closer to their effectiveness. However, you'd be paying a premium to achieve something similar, which is part of the design philosophy of high-tech.

Thoughts, suggestions, and comments welcome.



« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 07:38:24 AM by FooF »
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2020, 08:50:15 AM »

Maybe fighter shields should just take ALL damage as hard flux? All beam PD options have pitiful enough damage output that they won't over-perform anyway, imo.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2020, 09:54:33 AM »

These are good suggested changes, in particular the built in IPDAI. I think there are a couple more issues with Burst PD:

The first is flux efficiency: Burst PD has bad flux efficiency and the Heavy Burst Laser has horrid flux efficiency, at 1.07 and 1.37 flux/damage, respectively. Firing off the 3 charges of a burst pd costs ~410 flux and firing off the 5 charges from a heavy burst laser costs ~1000 flux! This is compared to PD/LRPD at .53 and .6 f/d. (Ballistic PD is almost free.) If the burst lasers waste their charges (which they do frequently) they actively harm the ship they are mounted on by wasting so much flux, and this often comes at the worst time (about to be hit by a fighter strike). It wouldn't be out of the question to me to half the flux costs of burst/heavy burst, even without any other changes.

The second is armor penetration: This is more of an issue revealed by Sparks rather than ships using burst pd, but Burst PD and Heavy Burst Laser have shockingly good armor penetration. Much better than is needed to combat any fighter (and better than is needed for many frigates too). This is arguably a good thing for the weapons, but it makes balance annoying and is essentially 'wasted' in its role of anti-missile/anti-fighter.

Third is DPS/OP: The OP has this in their Problem #1 point, but I wanted to reiterate it: Once the initial charges are consumed, the sustained DPS of the burst PD is halfway between a PD Lase and the LRPD laser, and its range is halfway as well. This is fine, except for the very high OP cost for that performance. Its just not competitive.

One possible solution is to change the damage type of Burst PD to Frag, significantly increasing its DPS, and significantly reducing its flux costs. This would make it worth its OP cost, as it would be able to deal with fighters in a matter proportional to its OP cost, but would reduce its effectiveness as an anti-ship secondary as compared to PD/LRPD lasers.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2020, 10:02:34 AM »

Imagine paying 7 OP for a weapon that can't even shoot down the most annoying missiles of all, Sabots. And that's 7 OP per mount. I think the ''point'' of Burst PD is using them when a ship has few small mounts so putting 1 or 2 PD lasers won't do much work. That said, 1 Burst PD also won't be doing miracles but at least it's something.

I agree with what was said here by most but I don't think changing the dmg type to frag would help it. It would still be pretty bad at busting fighter shields, worse than now probably. Maybe just improve the efficiency and let it ignore flares?
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2020, 10:16:19 AM »

I will note that, despite their flaws, burst PD - at least the small slot versions - really are worth their OP cost.  A lot of ships don't have the overlapping small energy firing arcs you need to get effective coverage out PDLasers or ERPDLasers.  When your choice of PD is between a weapon that won't actually shoot down any incoming missiles and one that will (but is expensive, flux-hungry, and bursty), the burst PD wins pretty much without question.

The Heavy Burst Laser is a lot less justifiable; the only place I've ever used one is the medium energy slots on the Conquest - with capital-scale ITU, it can (sometimes) shoot down MIRV-type missiles (most notably sabots) before they split.

The Paladin PD unit remains junk, alas; I get better PD utility out of manually aiming an HIL or Tachyon Lance.  It needs to either be re-made as a premium medium-slot weapon (so it can go back on, for example, the pylon mounts on the Astral it was originally designed for), or re-made into something with a viable secondary role.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1905
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2020, 10:48:14 AM »

Theorising....

What if burst PD had its fire rate & damage increased significantly, but their damage type was changed to fragmentation? (to prevent their increased potency affecting their offensive capability)

On a slightly related note, I feel that some of the damage types need renaming to better reflect their current usage & effect;

Kinetic -> Disruptor
High Explosive -> Armour Piercing
Fragmentation -> High Explosive
Logged

Mondaymonkey

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2020, 10:55:48 AM »

Iv'e tried burst lasers several times on a different builds on a different ships. Each time I was not satisfied. It is not enough powerful to kill most of a fighters, can't deal anything to a swarm missiles. Low-tech ships are neither unable to feed their high flux appetite nor have free OP to mount them. Besides, why would someone use them if low-tech hulls has ballistic slots, superior to energy as a PD? More advanced ships are usually able to mount tactical lasers and LRPDL. That pair is good vs most of a fighters and missiles and will not do much flux + it is an additional long-range suppression, that makes enemies keep their shields raised, preventing fast flux dissipation.

I am strongly convinced not to use them even if OP are decreased and flares ignored. The only thing, able to make me reconsider that opinion - largely increased amount of charges and flux-efficiency not higher than 1 (better less).

P.S. There was one anti-smallcraft burst PD build that was kinda effective, mostly because advanced optics. It was able to eliminate pirate frigates surprisingly good. But it sucks vs fighters, which is IMO unnatural for PD build.
Logged
I dislike human beings... or I just do not know how to cook them well.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2020, 11:48:06 AM »

All PD is mediocre to bad against shielded fighters, so I'm not sure why that is a requirement for burst PD. The best counter to fighters is fighters. The small burst PD are good anti missile weapons, and i prefer them over PD lasers. Usually I leave most small energy slots empty and use a few burst pd to cover important areas (like engines against salamanders). High tech ships generally have the ability to kite missiles pretty well anyway. The medium burst pd is very bad. In most cases, I would rather put a small burst pd in a medium slot than the heavy burst laser.

Obviously ships with access to ballistics will use ballistics, so it's really a question of how well they work on high tech ships. The small burst pd are fine IMO. I wouldn't mind a small buff but I don't think they really need it. The larger ones definitely need help to be useful.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2020, 11:54:43 AM »

Shielded fighters are supremely powerful. The shield type is extra powerful against PD and the flux regeneration gives them more lasting power than any other swarmer on the field. Those problems are due to shielded fighters, not PD.

Don't forget there are some perks that will dramatically change PD. Point Defense AI will give +50% vs missiles and will avoid decoy flares. Advanced countermeasures 3 gives +50% against fighters and missiles. Gunnery implants gives range and tracking against small targets, while ordinance expertise is a generic boost to weapons. A ship with the right loadout will end up a full class ahead of any other ship in the PD game.

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2020, 12:39:06 PM »

@ Thaago, et. al.

Yes, flux efficiency is a major downside and I was aware of it but...baby steps. If all the intended changes went through, their higher flux cost might be justifiable...might. However, in general, they are extremely poor PD weapons because they are quite flux positive (meanwhile, fighters/missiles cost 0 flux to do their damage).

The Frag Damage issue is something else I considered, but from a different angle. Instead of changing the damage type, halve the damage/flux cost and double charges/regen.  I don't know how much Burst PD is overkilling but this would also address, somewhat, the extremely front-loaded portion of their damage that is so susceptible to flares and whatnot. (Even if this were to happen, I think burst PD should still ignore flares). The armor penetration would get cut in half but fighters don't have a lot of armor...

@ intrinsic_parity

Which is also why we see the current meta revolving around carriers/fighters and there's a thread every month about bringing fighters into check. I've been a proponent of beefing up PD so that fighter attrition actually means something. Shielded fighters shrugging off most PD is symptomatic of the problem, not the norm we should balance around.

TalaR's suggestion might be a bit much but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing what that might look like.

Logged

Mondaymonkey

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2020, 01:28:59 PM »

so it's really a question of how well they work on high tech ships.

True. But there are alternative question: "Do they need any PD?"

Most of a High-tech ships already have good shields. Combined with a hullmods and skills makes HE damage almost useless against that protection. Most of a missiles are HE and larger ships can simply "catch" them by shields with a minor flux generated, smaller ships are usually fast enough to dodge. Which missiles are non HE? Squall, sabot, salamander and locust. Locust and salamander are fragmentation, which is even less dmg to shields. Squall IMO should penetrate any PD system as it is designed to do this. Sabot? If launched at point-blank any PD will not help, if launched from afar there a plenty of time to run or shot them manually. Conclusion - PD wont help a lot a hight-tech ships vs missiles.

Fighters, you say? True, it is a problem for high-tech ships (and any other, for the matter of that). But non-PD energy weapons are actually better fighter-hunters. Tactical lasers, graviton beams, IRPL and pulse lasers can destroy fighters really fast... at a cost of a significant flux cost. Still better than watch your PD unable to harm a shielded bugs. Conclusion - PD wont help a lot a hight-tech ships vs fighters.

My fleet is almost entirely high-tech, minor PD used, mostly - rear. Missiles are not a problem, fighters - minor problems(luckily AI are unable to spam them effectively).
Logged
I dislike human beings... or I just do not know how to cook them well.

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2020, 01:47:22 PM »

@Mondaymonkey

That's part of the initial disclaimer in the OP. High-tech ships don't need PD as much as low-tech because their shields take hits and can be replenished while the armor on low-tech does not. I get the design philosophy. However, high-tech ships are extremely vulnerable to fighters with kinetics and that's where PD comes in. To be honest, my favorite PD weapon against fighters is the Phase Lance...if that tells you how bad energy PD really is!

High-tech PD ought to complement the use of shields, especially when shields need to be dropped for tactical purposes. But, as it is, high-tech PD options are quite limited because Burst PD is not competitive against Beam PD or even an empty slot... :-\
Logged

Mondaymonkey

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2020, 02:03:57 PM »

my favorite PD weapon against fighters is the Phase Lance

Monsieur are subtle pervert. ©  ;)

I usually use paired Plasma Cannons as anti-fighter.  ;D

If serious, graviton beam + tactical laser. Evaporate any fighter in seconds.
Logged
I dislike human beings... or I just do not know how to cook them well.

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2020, 04:32:47 PM »

High-tech PD ought to complement the use of shields, especially when shields need to be dropped for tactical purposes. But, as it is, high-tech PD options are quite limited because Burst PD is not competitive against Beam PD or even an empty slot... :-\
It used to complement that quite well!  ...Then bonus energy damage from high flux got removed.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Burst PD Changes
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2020, 07:41:03 PM »

This is a great thread! I really appreciate all the thought put in here.

Oddly enough, just made some changes to Paladin PD yesterday; so, figured might as well tweak the burst lasers now as well.

Sum total of the changes:
Paladin PD System:
   Now creates explosions on impact - 100 points of fragmentation damage
   Reduced flux cost by 50%
Burst PD Laser: reduced flux cost by 33%
Heavy Burst Laser:
   Reduced flux cost by 40%
   No longer distracted by decoy flares

For the Paladin, conceptually the explosions are from spalling/explosive vaporization that happens at the impact point. These only occur when all the beams strike in relatively close proximity. The explosion radius is 75, with a core radius of 50, so its core radius is the same as the flak's outer radius, but the damage is lower.

Its main problem is really that there aren't many good ships to put it on. With the Brilliant being available in player fleets in the next release, it might actually be a half-decent candidate for a high-grade PD option... I guess we'll see. Might also find some use on the Paragon, maybe. It feels like it'll be niche just due to mounting options, almost no matter what.

For the heavy burst laser, wanted to 1) make it special by having it be the only one ignoring decoy flares, so it's worth the extra points, and 2) not trivialize either decoy flares of IPDAI too much.

The idea of reducing the damage while increasing the recharge rate also has merit - will think about that a bit more. It does dilute the bursty nature of the weapon, though.


It used to complement that quite well!  ...Then bonus energy damage from high flux got removed.

(I'm kind of thinking that with the new skill that gives that back, and with the PD-boosting skill, these could be completely terrifying...)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7