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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 54

Author Topic: Starsector 0.65.2a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 325191 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #210 on: December 11, 2014, 06:28:01 AM »

In that case, just call it "heat".
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #211 on: December 11, 2014, 11:49:18 AM »

Range is a pretty fundamental characteristic and one that should show variation though.

Yeah, I'm not entirely set on that one for beams. I do want to see how it works out, though - it allows for more freely mixing different types/sizes of beam weapons.


Along the lines of streamlining game mechanics by removing ballistic ammo and the flux damage bonus, what if "Flux" is flipped around and called "Energy" instead?

Firing weapons consume Energy, shields require Energy deflect damage, "Overload" becomes "Shutdown" when Energy runs out, "Venting" becomes "Recharge", "Flux Vents" becomes "Energy Generators", and Hard Flux happens because shields drain too much power causing capacitor plates to stick together and so shields need to be off to unstick the capacitors.

Gameplay will be totally the same, but much more intuitive to someone who just bought the game. Flux what? why is my ship sparking when this bar gets full???

Oddly enough, it started out being called "energy" but became "flux" to more easily explain both overload and venting mechanics. Didn't want to do "heat" due to too-obvious MW references. Plus, flux capacitors!
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #212 on: December 11, 2014, 11:58:48 AM »

MW?  MechWarrior?  I never played it (and thus know little about it); I played Doom instead.
Logged

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #213 on: December 11, 2014, 01:34:36 PM »

MW?  MechWarrior?  I never played it (and thus know little about it); I played Doom instead.
Yeah, Mechwarrior had heat mechanics that are kinda like those of SS but with a softer limit and a harsher penalty for the overload (your excess heat could set off your spare ammo, damaging you and removing the ammo.) And the overload could happen anywhere beyond a certain point
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #214 on: December 11, 2014, 02:05:54 PM »

And the overload could happen anywhere beyond a certain point

I really like such random elements, they allow you to gamble in dire situations and hope for the best:)
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #215 on: December 11, 2014, 02:27:50 PM »

And the overload could happen anywhere beyond a certain point

I really like such random elements, they allow you to gamble in dire situations and hope for the best:)
Let's not forget the limited number of "quick vents" you had and the environmental effects as well (Stand in water and the mech cools quicker)
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too

SatchelCharge

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #216 on: December 12, 2014, 03:47:34 PM »

'Obvious' similarities to MW in Starsector is NOT a bad thing   :)

I am totally cool with the removal of ballistic ammo but I'm still going to stand by my earlier idea to help differentiate ballistic weapons / make them more interesting...


Actually clip reloading could be implemented even without forced reload button - by having clip automatically filled if particular weapon hasn't fired for reload duration (or double to not make partial reloading too convenient).

Came here to make this type of suggestion. In my mind it would be cooler and more clean to have an 'individual weapon heat' mechanic control this, rather than spaceship-sized 'clips', but it would basically work the same way, so.... just an aesthetic suggestion.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 05:05:35 PM by SatchelCharge »
Logged

Zapier

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #217 on: December 13, 2014, 02:09:35 AM »

We could just use the current ammo limitations with how the energy weapons with ammo recharges. While the weapons are being fired, they don't reload at all. After a short period of not being fired they would start to quickly refill their capacity. There wouldn't need to be extra work done to balance 'clips/magazine' sizes, wouldn't be affected by little gimmicks such as firing off the last round or 'hit R to reload'. They'd be unlimited, but just not unlimited in the middle of a firefight which makes more limited ammo capacities still vulnerable in extended combat.
Logged

Unicorn Face

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #218 on: December 13, 2014, 10:20:19 AM »

Any big cannon with hundred(s) of shells in reserve is going to be designed to be reloaded during use, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OmOQs0ziSU ) even if it's so far into the future dark age that your crewfolk have to do it by hand. That's part of the reason you need fifteen or twenty guys to fully operate a space bus, right?

I like using the INTENSE laser, but it doesn't have much punch on its own and there's basically nothing you can pair it with for the last ~300 range units. A beamy-full Sunder is my fave space ship, (and one the AI is pretty good at staying alive with) and I don't bother turning on the lights until something is in range of the other two gravity/phase beams.

Overheating is probably going to be a bigger issue than energy production on a space ship powered by antimatter and fuckoffnium, because space is empty and there is almost nothing to conduct heat away from your climate-controlled rocket-propelled laser bus with thirty guys cramped together in it. I guess 'flux' is like 'heat but more sci-fi,' or 'heat as we understand it after developing a Unified Theory,' or 'heat that we can dump into another dimension and not worry about.'
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 10:22:17 AM by Unicorn Face »
Logged

Kerak

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #219 on: December 13, 2014, 06:50:17 PM »

Long time player and forum lurker here.

After reading some of the comments on here (P.S. thanks to Alex for responding to so many of them!), I think I can agree with most of the changes, and I see how they might reduce "cheesing" or "baiting" or whatever you want to call those playstyles. It will definitely be an interesting change to the game.

However, I just wanted to say something about the beam weapon range, which (considering all the balking about the HIL) I don't think most of you will like.
I LOVE beam weapons.  I always use a Graviton beam and tactical lasers on my Wolf, and whenever I have access to Phase Beams I will try to put them on a Medusa or on a Nevermore (BRDY mod) or whatever cool Destroyer/Cruiser that can mount them, etc. They are easy to use (no ammo worries, perfect accuracy), they can put good pressure on the enemy, and you can even manually use them to target incoming missiles, among other things. Beam Weapons are my favorite "no mercy" weapon because if you are careful about your own flux, they have 90%+ uptime against the enemy ships. That's a lot of flux and/or damage!

And in all my time using beam weapons, I never once thought that "hey these things should have a range of like, 1000!"...that just seems too high to me. Perhaps someone can explain to me the idea behind it...Is it simply to differentiate from Ballistic weapons, which have a much shorter range in general (excluding Heavy Mauler, etc)? Is it because their DPS is generally lower (i.e. tactical lasers, graviton beam) than comparable OP cost ballistic weapons? I'm kind of struggling to think of why 1000 seems like a balanced range. 800 would be enough, IMO.

Think of the Eagle (I believe), which has 3 graviton beams mounted on it. with 1000 range, it can simply kite many ships and build up their flux until it can close in for the kill with the assault chainguns, and there is little other ships can do about it unless they are faster.  And the Eagle is pretty quick...

Because of this...
Whenever I test new loadouts, i always put my frigates / destroyers / cruisers up against an Eagle to see how they do.  And that damn graviton / assault chaingun / sabot combo is honestly really annoying to beat - which is why i do it. If my frigate/destroyer loadout can beat an Eagle (my cruisers still need to face apogees and stuff ;) ), then I'm confident even the most gimmicky ship the AI has in its arsenal can be beaten if I'm careful enough.

If you are trying to reduce "cheesy" fighting styles, I wouldn't INCREASE beam weapon range by so much. It just seems to open the door to kiting, which is one of the most annoying fighting styles ever. Long range engagement is one thing, but being kited...UGH!

HIL is a different case...considering the OP cost and the mount size, a longer range would be expected.  Maybe just give it an extra 25/50 damage to compensate for the range reduction? Or perhaps the reduced OP cost will be enough to make it attractive.


P.S. The ballistic ammo change also seems ... strange.  I thought ammo management was an important part of the game that added a fair amount of depth. But I do see your point about how it makes low-tech ships inferior to things like the Sunder, with all those big, bad energy slots. (2 Medium, 1 Large).

Maybe instead of unlimited ammo, just make it regenerate like missile ammo? If the ship can make missiles in combat, it can make heavy mauler shells, right? :)
I dunno, I don't design games, i just play them. Thank you for Starsector, Alex!
Logged

Canis Lupus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #220 on: December 13, 2014, 09:51:29 PM »

Quote
    Removed energy weapon bonus damage from high flux level
    Increased damage values for non-beam energy weapons by roughly 25% to compensate

I don't understand how the AI isn't using this mechanic - if the AI fires an energy weapon at higher flux, doesn't its weapon do more damage? Here there are too level of "use" - 1) the benefit is applied to the AI and 2) the AI can use the benefit tactically. I'm guessing 1) is true while 2) is not.

Regardless, I will miss this mechanic and the additional playstyles it allows. No more running around with my naked Sunder, timing autopulse burst + high-energy focus + flux damage boost while praying I'll avoid the incoming Reaper. No more finishing Paragon vs. Onslaught slugfests with an heroic shieldless assault, and certainly less reason for my Tempests to play like Hounds.

Quote
    Beam weapons:
        Standardized range to 1000 for most non-PD, from Tactical Laser to HIL

There are four offensive beam weapons. Three of these behave identically, with tactical variations coming mostly from range (being removed) and flux/dmg//sec. Instead of further standardizing this already-a-bit-bland category of weapons, I suggest the following (won't happen, but what the heck!):

Standardize beam weapons around joules, say 2 GJ, 4 GJ, and 8 GJ weapons and add a feature to allow easy beam wavelength remodulation - shorter wavelengths provide more damage, but reduced range, with the damage/range potential limited by the joule bracket of the weapon in question. Then have 2 or 3 beam weapon types - photon/energy & graviton/kinetic, and (maybe) explosive.

Then if you want the tactical advantages of a set of 1km-range beams, you can get that, but if you prefer the tactical advantages of range diversity, you can get that as well. Plus, customization!

Quote
        Increased range for PD Laser and LR PD Laser
        Slightly reduced OP cost for all beam weapons

Great!

Quote
       
        Tactical Laser, Graviton Beam, and Phase Beam are no longer interrupted by missiles

Great as long as the missiles in question can be manually targeted for destruction/get destroyed anyway.

Quote
        Greatly reduced fade in/out time for most beams

Great!

Quote
    Missiles:
        Salamander: both versions have unlimited ammo and require 20 seconds to reload
        Hurricane MIRV: regenerates 1 ammo every 20 seconds
        Pilum LRM: regenerates 1 ammo every 10 seconds

The way I deal with early-game Buffalos and speced Lashers is a combination of good helmsmanship and properly-timed aggression that results in a variety of a quick victory, slow victory, and defeat.

I don't know whether these changes make sense; it's the type of thing that you have to play with to be able to comment on... but I do think it reduces the flavor and defining characteristic of missiles.


Quote
    Ballistic weapons:
        Now have unlimited ammo, except for Bomb Bay
        Reduced OP cost of Light Dual MG

The two arguments I've seen in support of this are: 1) Ammo doesn't run out anyway, so it's a useless mechanic. 2) Ammo runs out in ballistic-based ships, whereas it doesn't in high-tech ships, an unfair advantage in prolonged battles.

RE: 1) Ammo does sometimes run out, and I consider that when choosing my weapon layout, and when picking when to fire and at what to fire. Also, just because it doesn't often run out doesn't mean the mechanic is 'useless', it certainly adds flavor, a "feel" if you like, to ballistic weapons.

RE: 2)I've read a number of good alternatives on this, with CR being a good late-battle balancer.

Quote
    Ships
        Destroyers and cruisers now have a peak effectiveness timer like frigates
            Roughly 5-7 minutes for destroyers and 7-9 for cruisers
            High-tech/faster ships have shorter timers

Makes sense... though CR doesn't make sense to me as implemented to begin with... my suggestion,

1. Ship loses CR per deployment and per time as is currently the case (but less-so than currently). This is a result of systems and crew being on standby for extended time.
2. Additionally, firing weapons/using engines/systems has a marginal negative effect on CR, that will cumulatively hit Hyperions (CR-costly transport)/frigates (costly 100% engine uptime) more in relation to other ships, allowing for the faster degradation.
3. CR degradation should affect all ships, but be much slower in capitals... realistically, capital systems and crew aren't immune from fatigue just because they're on a big ship, and gameplay-wise capitals will still long-outlast smaller ships, but not be perpetual fighting machines.

Quote
        Sunder: increased top speed, acceleration, and flux capacity. Reduced shield efficiency.
        Brawler/Shepherd: increased burn level by 1 (to 6)
        Condor: reduced supplies/day by 1 (to 4)

Sunder: Makes sense for an aggressive ship like the Sunder. Fits my playstyle perfectly.
Brawler/Shepherd: Makes sense. Will the Brawler lose its CR uniqueness?
Condor: Finally a reason to use that one!
Logged

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #221 on: December 14, 2014, 12:32:16 AM »

Quote
Quote
Tactical Laser, Graviton Beam, and Phase Beam are no longer interrupted by missiles
Great as long as the missiles in question can be manually targeted for destruction/get destroyed anyway.
Really depends on what else you have in the fight. It makes the point defense module much more questionable for Tactical Lasers, as their range makes it so that if they're firing at missiles they likely cannot safely engage anything, particularly something like a Salamander, as it goes past them. Doesn't really matter all that much for Phase Beams, Graviton Beams, and High Intensity Lasers, at least not in my opinion, since those were unlikely to engage missiles in the first place.

Quote
There are four offensive beam weapons. Three of these behave identically, with tactical variations coming mostly from range (being removed) and flux/dmg//sec.
Two behave identically, all four behave similarly. Phase Beams have some EMP damage while Graviton Beams deal kinetic damage. Tactical Lasers and High Intensity Lasers are both straight energy damage. Kinetic damage makes Graviton Beams nearly as effective as HILs against shields on a per-weapon basis and significantly more flux-efficient but only about as good as a Tactical Laser against the hull. It's true that Tactical Lasers, HILs, and Graviton Beams all have very similar profiles and could perhaps use a bit more differentiation, but Tactical Lasers and HILs have the same performance (before shield efficiency or armor effects) against hull and shield and cannot go into slots which can be filled by the other, whereas Graviton Beams have differing performance against shields and armor/hull, and can replace HILs or be replaced by Tactical Lasers. The EMP damage of Phase Beams suggests that they should be used against unshielded hulls where possible, but they don't really offer enough EMP damage to do anything worthwhile, which leaves them with their somewhat lackluster energy damage, which is inferior against shields to that of the Graviton Beam and not terribly better than the Graviton Beam's damage against much else.

(The EMP damage of Phase Beams could perhaps be increased a bit. 40 EMP damage per second (or is it per damage pulse, in which case it'd be 80 EMP damage per second?) isn't much at all when the Ion Cannon offers 400 EMP damage per shot and fires one shot every half a second though at a much shorter range; the Mjolner Cannon and Hypervelocity Drivers have similar range and the Hypervelocity Driver has similar DPS, though worse against armor and better against shields, while having significantly better EMP damage per second, being 200 EMP damage per second for the Hypervelocity Driver and 267 EMP damage per second for the Mjolner Cannon. If I'm looking for EMP damage at range, then unless I cannot use ballistics, phase beams aren't where I'm looking, and I'm not looking to them for long-range damage, either.)

Quote
The two arguments I've seen in support of this are: 1) Ammo doesn't run out anyway, so it's a useless mechanic. 2) Ammo runs out in ballistic-based ships, whereas it doesn't in high-tech ships, an unfair advantage in prolonged battles.
I'm not certain, but based on comments that were made earlier in the thread, it seems to me as though Alex may now be keeping some kind of ammo restriction on some ballistic weapons but including a clip reload. This would mean that if you had a weapon with 100 ammunition and fired 10-shot bursts every second that regenerates one burst every 5 seconds, it'd fire 10 shot bursts every second for 12 seconds, and then it'd fire one 10 shot burst every 5 seconds after that (not including the first burst after the 12 second period, which would occur 3 seconds after the 12 second period ended), unless you gave the weapon a chance to more completely reload, much like the Autopulse Laser can fire off 20 shots in the first tenth of a second or so of the engagement but is then restricted to one shot every half a second until given the opportunity to recharge. Another possibility for the clip reload would be a weapon with 30 ammunition which fires 1 shot per second and regenerates 3 shots at once every 10 seconds, so for the first ~43 seconds of combat you could fire the weapon continuously, but after that point you would fire 3 shot bursts every 10 seconds. I might, however, be wrong about this.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 12:34:40 AM by Aeson »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #222 on: December 14, 2014, 03:35:38 AM »

And in all my time using beam weapons, I never once thought that "hey these things should have a range of like, 1000!"...that just seems too high to me. Perhaps someone can explain to me the idea behind it

Welcome to the forum :)


As I understand it, the main idea behind the range matching is that different beams work better in conjunction. So, if you have for example Tactical Lasers and Graviton Beams equipped on your Medusa, it will have one effective engagement range, not two. That's important because beams rely much more on a synergy effect than other weapons, without it they often have no observable effect vs. shields.

I think the other part is that beams are supposed to be support weapons, so it does make some sense for them to be able to fire from the "second row" where support ships linger.

What you have to consider when you say "I love beams weapons [already]" is that Sector is not a mutiplayer game, so you never have to directly compare your play stile and loadouts to other players'. While beams do work nicely in many situations, hard hitting weapons like blasters are plain superior in most situations. When you begin to optimize your ships more and more you will inevitably gravitate toward such weapons (provided your play stile enables them). Maybe this update will change that.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Kerak

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #223 on: December 14, 2014, 04:40:18 AM »

What you have to consider when you say "I love beams weapons [already]" is that Sector is not a mutiplayer game, so you never have to directly compare your play stile and loadouts to other players'. While beams do work nicely in many situations, hard hitting weapons like blasters are plain superior in most situations. When you begin to optimize your ships more and more you will inevitably gravitate toward such weapons (provided your play stile enables them). Maybe this update will change that.

They are only superior if you don't miss. Which is one reason I think beam weapons are powerful already. If you miss with blaster shots (like the high damage, high flux ones that the apogee has), you are spending a lot of flux for POTENTIAL damage (at a shorter range, as well! - very few of the hard hitting weapons have the same range as beam weapons). Hard hitting is great, but that's what high explosive ballistic rounds are for, or the antimatter blaster, IMO. Beam weapons are great for constant pressure on the enemy. Softening them up, as it were. I don't see why I would inevitably "gravitate toward [hard hitting] weapons" when their purposes are very different.  I mean, for example...one of the cheesiest, but most effective loadouts (again, IMO) for the Medusa is 4 tactical lasers + 2 dual blasters.  The tactical lasers generate a healthy amount of flux on the enemy's shields for frigates and some destroyers, and a few blaster shots can get them to overload (possibly), in addition to Sabot missiles as well (perhaps) in the universal slots.  But the DPS of the blasters is dangerous, because you can cause your own ship to overload on flux because of how much they generate. However, if you have 2 phase beams + 4 tactical lasers + <just about anything> in the two universal slots, you not only keep building flux on the enemy's shields (for much less cost on your own flux, and at greater range), you can keep a constant stream of damage on the enemy when his shields overload, or he takes them down to vent flux. I will admit, though, that 2 phase beams will probably take longer than 2 dual blasters, provided you aren't too aggressive with the blasters (i.e. endangering yourself to overloading on flux).

What i'm trying to say is that while hard-hitting weapons like blasters and plasma cannons are obviously great, they are also geared toward a different playstyle (as you mentioned yourself) and that a good player in a nimble ship can mitigate a lot of blaster/ammo-based damage while keeping continuing DPS via beam weapons on the enemy with little effort, whether AI or human. And maybe it isn't enough to take the ship down alone, but how often do you fight the enemy (outside of simulations) when you are the only ship engaged? Even from the beginning of a campaign, having 2 ships is leaps and bounds better than 1 lonely ship trying to fight/trade/bounty hunt its way up the food chain. It is literally a game-changer. Likewise, I think that beams can already be game-changers...giving most of them 1000 range just seems a bit too much, considering even 800 would be an upgrade for most of them. And if they all have 800 range, that is still "synergistic", right?

Thank you for responding to my post, though! Please tell me more about what you think / what I'm forgetting or not considering / etc!
Logged

Captain Pugh

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #224 on: December 14, 2014, 09:04:48 AM »

I've given it a few days of thought, and read the entire thread, before replying here.  Most of the things I'm not too keen on (except the final section) boil down to the 'Feels good, with high verisimilitude/fantastic immersion and mostly excellent balance as is, with tons of refreshing and complex nuance rarely found in games these days' mentioned by others.

I think that these little bits and bobs are solid gold, and it's heartbreaking when they get tidied away in the name of efficiency. :'(  It's largely this tidying away that made me pretty much stop playing new computer games a few years ago, and the lack of that tidying away that made me pounce on Starsector like a starving man when I discovered it (HuntrBlackLuna's let's play on YT):-

Flux bonus removal to energy weapons: Gives an additional level of tactical options/play, but for me mostly just feels heroic.  Kind of a 'Back's against the wall, last ditch chance to shoot hard and avoid disaster... or go down fighting' sort of thing.  Since immersion is a big deal for me, it'd never occur to me in a million years to cheese it by firing at nothing to get flux up (and my builds already run pretty hot, so the last thing I'd ever do is deliberately raise flux!); and I hate that 'reduce to the lowest common denominator' nursemaid curse of our age, where I get an option taken off me because somebody somewhere [chances are a person I would really dislike, just as an extra bonus] abuses it.

If the AI can't use it, then these things happen in the overall balance of the game... of any game; humans and computers 'thinking' very differently, with different abilities.  It annoys me slightly when the AI 'cheeses' its Phase Skimmer Wolf/Medusa to dodge my Plasma Cannon (and even Antimatter Blaster) shots, fired at absolutely point blank range.  Not only that but it also jumps perfectly to where it needs to be, with exactly the right orientation: No human would have that reaction time/perfect control, and certainly not me ;D, but I take it as part of the balance of the overall game between the human that I am and my AI adversary.  If I get a bit of extra flux power in my energy weapons in exchange, when it doesn't, then fair enough.

And if it is going to be removed, and that's that, then why do only non-beams get the extra base damage compensation... when beams need it far more than my mighty blaster type weapons do?

Ballistic ammo removal: Again feels heroic and exciting taking out your final enemy with only a few HVD (for example) rounds remaining - yes!  Rounds remaining is also an excellent metric of how well I built and fought, which sharpens my skills.  I used tight, disciplined fire and prevailed - or I succumbed to the temptation to spray and pray a couple of times [usually at a pesky Wolf!] and rightly got punished.  The CR timer won't replicate this, and will actually be more likely to reward the spray and pray (flux allowing) than the discipline?

Even if it was never intended to be a major part of weapon balance, it became so and is a very good one.  It's my view that if something that was never intended to be a major balancing factor is, and feels good and right and 'real'/intuitive despite that; then this a testament to how sound the core game and its balance are... don't mess with it.... ;D

Beam range: The above two are more about 'how it feels', so a pretty subjective judgement call - and as such I might be wrong... inasmuch as there is a wrong or right about feelings *shrug*.  This one is more solid, nuts and bolts game mechanics stuff; and therefore is the one that I'm most concerned about.

Beams should have different ranges, according to their size/how numerous they are and role.  This is the case with other weapon types in the game and is one of the many things in this game that makes it feel just so right - especially for those who are fans of naval design and naval history.  Yeah, folks can sniff at realism, and say 'It's just an abstract set of rules in a game': But realism = immersion and mostly how intuitive the game is.  Ditch realism and it becomes lame pure fantasy (where anything goes because magic).

From a gameplay PoV: Any 'no-brainer' build/bit of gear is generally considered to be a bit of a problem in game design.  For heavy beam mounts, the TL is usually that no-brainer weapon.  Cap ships without Augmented Engines (AEs) simply can't catch faster units unless they use TLs, and even then they're chasing ships all round the map forever.  If you like a clean sweep, then you pretty much have to use TLs on your sluggish Cap ships.  [Yup, the new CR timer on everything from Cruisers downwards will help there, but I'd rather kill the enemy with my own weapons than wait for some gamey game mechanic to save the day.]

I find this particularly in simulation mode, using an Odyssey with no AEs, when up against a big fleet leaving only the Falcon Ds alive - they just back off at extreme range forever - if you want to test this.  The Falcons behave differently if you have just Falcons, so you need to take out their team mates first for this to happen.

This makes the TL compulsory.  If you have an Odyssey with AEs, then you can just about catch the Falcons with a HIL - but usually not in a Paragon with AEs.  So that's one niche where you might take the HIL - but only with its range as it currently is.  What it needs is longer range, not less: Less makes the TL the uber no-brainer, even more than it is already.  It needs to be able to compete with the TL as a viable choice - bit less range than a TL (but more than the HIL has now) and cheap and cheerful... but still substantially outranges and outguns medium beams... with it being a heavy weapon and all....

Other places where you might use a HIL, but don't: Apogee (Plasma Cannon/Pulse weapon is Just Better); Sunder - awesome ship, that is being improved further 8) and works very well with a HIL... except do folks still use the Sunder in endgame, when they're up against Onslaught bounties and stuff?.. so does the HIL actually get used much there?

I say all this actually liking the HIL pretty much as is - but it's just completely outperformed most of the time.  It needs to be better, not worse.  Even if the HIL was only one OP, I'd still take the TL for Cap ships and Plasma Cannon for Apogees.

Continuing that hierarchy downwards, medium needs to be able to substantially outrange and outgun small (and be less than a HIL by a similar margin).  Here you can imagine a head to head fight between a beam armed Falcon and beam armed Hammerhead; all weapons cancel except the two forward energy mounts (2x medium vs 2x small).  The Falcon should be noticeably superior in damage output (not just tanking ability).  Will this be the case with the new Tac Lasers with identical range, and which also have superior PD ability thrown in vs the Grav Beam and Phase Beam?  Personally, I already find the (beam armed) Falcon and Eagle incredibly lackluster, and this will make them relatively even worse.

Re the synergy point: Not for me.  I like graduated range and numbers of weapons firing.  In terms of realistic but also logical.  I like my shield-breaker beam to fire before my Phase Beam and then Tac Lasers do, since this keeps the optimal weapon the only one firing, and reduces flux.  Then you can move in and get the lower tier of weapons contributing to melting armour/hull... and pull back if you get too hot - and so on.  I find the lower range of Tac Lasers (and Antimatter Blasters), all of which I tend to have on Autofire, to be a boon - in terms of flux management.  If all my Tac Lasers start opening up at 1000m then my flux curve's going to go crazy, way too soon.

This will probably encourage 'exploitative' kiting, rather than doing a bit of that initially (to soften him up a bit) then getting stuck in - as mentioned by others in this thread.  Or people will use Tac Lasers even less than they do now, in many builds.  Eg, I already use only 4x LRPDs in the side mounts of my lovely Apogee, since the flux of even a couple of Tac Lasers (which I would otherwise actually prefer), even at their current range, is just that bit too much.

If it is considered desirable to have a 1000m small beam, then it'd be nice if there was another beam type added for this purpose, and leave the ol' Tac Laser pretty much as she is.  It'd give us another beam colour too: taste the rainbow! ;D

I only say all this because I care, and consider myself unusually blessed to have found this awesome game: breath of fresh air, in a stale industry, that it is.  That said, things always seem different when actually playing (play testing?), so it might turn out to be all good.  Eg, beam mounts might become so much OP cheaper that you can afford other stuff to offset the changes, and so on.  We don't know yet.

Cheers all.   
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 54