Just a thought about this - I'm not sure that a DPS drop for a weapon that's going to be flux-limited regardless is actually that much of a difference. Arguably, the DPS reduction is almost a buff because it makes the weapon easier to use while largely retaining its damage potential. If it takes an extra few seconds of fire to get the same damage out... heck, that might even be better since it's harder to armor-tank against. There will be some situations where it's worse, too, but I don't think it's as clear cut as just "33% weaker".
The thing is though, kinetic weapons, especially kinetic weapons where you’re in knife fighting range aren’t ever really dissipation limited. You almost always want to shoot over your dissipation until the enemy puts their shields down.
... which is why I said "flux limited" not just dissipation
Even if you don't hit flux capacity, it's still flux-limited (maybe flux-based is a better term? regardless) in the sense that you're converted a desired amount of flux into hard flux on enemy shields. Taking a few extra seconds to do it matters, but it doesn't matter as much as raw dps numbers would suggest.
A DPS reduction on a weapon is never a buff all things equal. It’s always better to have more available DPS. It’s not always better to shoot that DPS but it’s always better to have it.
I think this would be true if the AI fired weapons at partial ROF, but in the actual game, the vast majority of guns are on autofire 95% of the time, meaning you really need to judge a gun as if it is always firing. The only case I agree with this is if the weapon is on the player ship and manually fired.
(Yep. And even then it's both a pain and likely comes at a cost of doing something else more useful.)
All that aside, the new patch is looking super promising and I'm eager for a chance to enjoy it when it's ready.
Thank you! Looking forward to getting it out there
Huh, shouldn't the fighter wing offset positions deal with that? On astrals the daggers and longbows seem ok... but if not, then the offset on daggers should be upped a bit to make them go behind the longbows.
Yes they do, and the distance from the target doesn't matter for how they line up. In fact a slightly longer distance is better since it gives them a chance to line up exactly as desired. Both the Trident and the Dagger have the same offset.
https://imgur.com/a/GGTGogqThe Daggers do hit a touch earlier because when they get close enough, they accelerate to max speed. But both generally hit before the Longbow and this difference is not affected by the length of the attack run.
Man all these cool weapon buffs and reworks yet the Pulse laser is crying in the corner with 1.1 efficiency. Ion pulser will straight out be a better choice for most ships, frigates will still have issue mounting any assault medium weapon. Sorry if this was mentioned already but I didn't have time to read everything since my last response here.
Yeah... honestly, from testing, the Ion Pulser feels a bit too strong right now. I might dial it back, and maybe up the efficiency of the Pulse Laser a bit.
This is only true for low-tech ships. For Conquest, it is a nerf because it has no problem sustaining the old Storm Needlers long enough. If I need to pair them with Heavy Mortars for HE just so AI-piloted Conquest will engage at the proper ranges, then it needs the DPS to compete somewhat with other weapon combinations with superior range.
The old Storm Needler is effectively a Conquest-only weapon. The new one will probably require Conquest to stick something in the medium energy mount to make for lost damage, if it even has OP left to afford another weapon or two.
Old Storm Needler is comparable to Mjolnir in flux use, and Conquest can make good use of Mjolnir too.
Fair points.
IMO Hammer barrages could use some help overall, a slight base ammo increase would make it a lot less crap compared to the Cyclone. As is its only real selling point is that its cheaper and has a higher rate of fire. Currently its just too of an unattractive weapon compared to the reaper launcher, the only reason any player ever uses it is because it comes as a fixed mount on some vanilla and modded ships.
Hmm, let me have a look.
All those balancing and QoL patchnotes read like the playtesting is in full swing! Looking forward to the changed game dynamic.
Ahh, does that imply size 1 or 2 frontier-town style colonies didn't make it into the game?
Ah, they didn't! I still like the idea, just... too much of a re-work. Still something that's in the "potential" pile, though.
If combined, this might lead to some ships needing more crew than they can support, right? Cool, role play wise. Might also make passenger ships worthwhile if you're running a junker fleet.
Yep!
That got me thinking, maybe it would be nice if you could trigger a punitive expedition early (for reputation), so you have a chance to deal with it right away and then explore safely?
Well - you could use a story point to avert it, so that's... kind of the same thing just in a different way.
Do boarding parties recognize (illegal) automated ships, like Remnants or anything with an AI core shoved in them? If so, do they demand surrender of such ships or simply cut the link and open fire?
They don't.
I also admit I'm not used to thinking the graph of OP costs of hypothetical weapons versus DPS, going from 0 DP to 750 DPS, as not a line but some sort of curve, but I can see that being true when limited to a some collection of actually existing ships.
FWIW, neither am I
That's not a balancing measure I'm using; if things do end up on some sort of reasonable-looking curve based on that, that's a side effect/outcome of the other balance metrics (which, maybe too strong a word), not a primary goal. As you say, there's just a ton of factors, and any approach that crunches the numbers down to simplify also unavoidably loses context.
