Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Thoughts on weapon balance
Thoughts on weapon balance |
Fri, 12 February 2016 21:24 |
|
Question | | Petty Officer 3rd Class | Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007 | |
|
Forum ate my post and didnt auto-save anything so this is a short version.
Beams : (not sappers, regular beams) seem pretty underpowered. Gatling ones have an obvious use, but the regular ones are too short ranged one and simply cannot outdps regular torps, let alone missiles at higher tech levels. The range is a huge problem because there is no way to make a tanky, close ranged fighter, since jammers are not equal to computers and there is a limit to how many jammers you can stack. Going from 3 to 6 jammer-50s does pretty much nothing except waste slots for example.
Torps : They get out-dpsed by missiles in almost all situations, even when firing at shielded targets with jammers. They dont have any clear role when missiles are basically far superior. The fact that torps and missiles do 50% damage through shields is a huge balance problem because it means that using smaller ships (like DEs) is pointless because torps will wipe them out through shields, which forces you to spam battleships and nubians instead (since they have the hull armor to tank the shield penetrating damage).
Missiles : Extremely OP, its supposed to be an anti-armor weapon (which is necessary when armor is roughly 3x as effective as shields for some reason), but it does 50% penetrating damage AND is highly effective against shields as well. And since their base damage is so high, they still outdps torps even with their deceptively low accuracy (which gets huge boosts from computers, while torps get much lower bonuses).3x jammer-30s vs 3x omega torps give the torps an accuracy of 84%, which is very poor compared to armageddons going from 30-45% accuracy in the same situation.
Because missiles are so OP, it forces people to use stuff like chaff which doesnt make sense (there is a reason why nobody uses ships as "chaff" in real life). Meanwhile you cant use a setup where you have tough ships with jammers distract enemy missile boats while lightly armored ships in the rear fire missiles, because the targetting will ignore the closer ships. So fleet building strategies degenerate into mostly missile boats with chaff vs missile boats with chaff and mixing in some gatlings/sappers in between.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Sat, 13 February 2016 11:35 |
|
|
[sharkish grin]
You should play a game vs humans.
And see wether you keep up your analysis that beamer ships aren't worth building.
With good standard designs, resource for resource, torp ships haven't got a chance against beamer ships (which will be even cheaper in minerals, use less fuel and can be gated).
Thus I guess the problem is rather the design you had in mind for torp or beamer ships.
Missiles are an important weapon but they are toast if completly on their own. And they cost too much ironium.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Sun, 14 February 2016 09:05 |
|
Question | | Petty Officer 3rd Class | Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007 | |
|
Unless im missing something, range 3 beams seem to cost significantly more resources than torps of the same level. And if you have enough miners or planets you shouldnt be running into a mineral shortage anyway.
If we look at armageddons vs AM pulverizers, the armageddons can get off two salvos before the AM pulverizers can even enter firing range and the beams take a damage penalty for distancea s well. Since jammers are significantly weaker compared to computers, you can never put enough jammers on a ship to jam enough of the incoming missiles. Deflectors vs capacitors is a much more balanced comparison. And if you are going to use beams to try and tank enemy fire (Which doesnt really work against missiles, since the missiles will see a heavily defended target with jammers and go after YOUR missiles instead), you would be better off using sappers so that your missiles can do double damage faster. Sappers + Missiles are a much better alternative to trying to use beams unless you are very short on minerals.
Im not sure how damage is applied through the shields though, for example if i do 1k damage to shields and 1k to armor, does all of the 1k armor damage apply to a single ship or is it spread out over all ships in the token?
[Updated on: Sun, 14 February 2016 09:06] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Sun, 14 February 2016 09:48 |
|
Question | | Petty Officer 3rd Class | Messages: 48
Registered: February 2007 | |
|
Also is this the way gatling beams work :
E.G. You have a big mutha canon (204 damage, range 2) firing at a token with 10 enemy ships. Do they each take 204 damage, so 2,040 damage in total? Unless im missing something, the gatling beams will massively outdamage all other beams unless you are firing at a single target (like a starbase) or very small tokens.
E.G. Lets say you have a cruiser with 6x big mutha canons firing at 10 enemy ships. That is 1,224 damage to each ship for a total of 10,224 damage, whereas a ship with 6x AM pulverizers would do 2,598 damage. The cruiser with 6x big mutha canons would be far more effective at bringing down the shield stack, even more than a ship armed with syncro sappers (which would do 3,246 damage vs shields only).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Sun, 14 February 2016 18:47 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Question wrote on Sun, 14 February 2016 15:05Unless im missing something, range 3 beams seem to cost significantly more resources than torps of the same level. And if you have enough miners or planets you shouldnt be running into a mineral shortage anyway.
Oh, but you eventually will, by the time techs are high and your shipbuilding is maximum.
Quote:If we look at armageddons vs AM pulverizers, the armageddons can get off two salvos before the AM pulverizers can even enter firing range and the beams take a damage penalty for distancea s well.
Yup. Then the beams get in range and all the missiles die. End of battle.
Quote:jammers are significantly weaker compared to computers, you can never put enough jammers on a ship to jam enough of the incoming missiles.
You most definitely can, particularly if not dealing with the more accurate Torpedoes.
Quote:Deflectors vs capacitors is a much more balanced comparison.
Capacitors don't compound as nicely as Deflectors.
Quote: And if you are going to use beams to try and tank enemy fire
There's designs that can do that, more or less.
Quote:(Which doesnt really work against missiles,
Most people use chaff. It's a kinda rock-paper-scissors balance.
Quote: since the missiles will see a heavily defended target with jammers and go after YOUR missiles instead)
Yup. And will most likely die when the beams get in range.
Quote:you would be better off using sappers so that your missiles can do double damage faster.
Indeed, though many players seem to neglect sappers.
Quote: Sappers + Missiles are a much better alternative to trying to use beams unless you are very short on minerals.
Add beams and chaff and you got a really great fleet mix.
Quote:for example if i do 1k damage to shields and 1k to armor, does all of the 1k armor damage apply to a single ship or is it spread out over all ships in the token?
Spread out, but only one ship can die per missile received.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Mon, 15 February 2016 07:11 |
|
XAPBob | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
Gatlings hit each token, which mean they can be powerful against either multiple enemies or a mixed fleet.
They are relatively weak against a single ship type fleet, but there will be other counters to those anyway.
The Beams/Sappers/Missiles/Torps/Chaff system has proven relatively well balanced.
Everything needs some Iron - Missiles need lots of it, and plenty of Germ (which you've used up building factories)
Beams need boranium, as do bombs
Sappers need germanium - which you've used up building factories and missiles ships (computers)
Torps need iron but can get away with a bit less germ
Of course everything needs economic resources as well....
Deflectors outweigh capacitors (because they stack further), and with regen shields you can have large beamer stacks just fire at each other and do no damage at all...
Missiles come in and do nasty damage, even through shields - but Jamming does reduce their effect considerably, and they are very expensive to lose (in Iron, Germ and resource) particularly as the 'enemy' will likely be able to scoop up those minerals and run away with them (in order to build more ships).}
In the late game minerals are a scarce resource - you've depleted minerals from all the planets other than that one that just got hit by a comet, and the HW's. Unless you have an AR mining all the HW then you are really struggling, and are running an alchemy programme.
So you can't afford to build/replace missile ships...
A mixed battle fleet is important - which brings gatlings into play again...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Thu, 09 June 2016 20:35 |
|
magic9mushroom | | Commander | Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Question wrote on Sat, 13 February 2016 13:24Forum ate my post and didnt auto-save anything so this is a short version.
Beams : (not sappers, regular beams) seem pretty underpowered. Gatling ones have an obvious use, but the regular ones are too short ranged one and simply cannot outdps regular torps, let alone missiles at higher tech levels. The range is a huge problem because there is no way to make a tanky, close ranged fighter, since jammers are not equal to computers and there is a limit to how many jammers you can stack. Going from 3 to 6 jammer-50s does pretty much nothing except waste slots for example.
Torps : They get out-dpsed by missiles in almost all situations, even when firing at shielded targets with jammers. They dont have any clear role when missiles are basically far superior. The fact that torps and missiles do 50% damage through shields is a huge balance problem because it means that using smaller ships (like DEs) is pointless because torps will wipe them out through shields, which forces you to spam battleships and nubians instead (since they have the hull armor to tank the shield penetrating damage).
Missiles : Extremely OP, its supposed to be an anti-armor weapon (which is necessary when armor is roughly 3x as effective as shields for some reason), but it does 50% penetrating damage AND is highly effective against shields as well. And since their base damage is so high, they still outdps torps even with their deceptively low accuracy (which gets huge boosts from computers, while torps get much lower bonuses).3x jammer-30s vs 3x omega torps give the torps an accuracy of 84%, which is very poor compared to armageddons going from 30-45% accuracy in the same situation.
Because missiles are so OP, it forces people to use stuff like chaff which doesnt make sense (there is a reason why nobody uses ships as "chaff" in real life). Meanwhile you cant use a setup where you have tough ships with jammers distract enemy missile boats while lightly armored ships in the rear fire missiles, because the targetting will ignore the closer ships. So fleet building strategies degenerate into mostly missile boats with chaff vs missile boats with chaff and mixing in some gatlings/sappers in between.
Beams are good because:
- they're light
- they're cheap in Ironium
- they sweep mines
- the "one torpedo-one kill" rule doesn't apply
Being light is good for several reasons. First, weight decreases speed on the battleboard (at 70kT per engine, you slow down 1/4, at 140kT per engine you slow down 1/2, etc.). Second, fuel use is proportional to weight, making it rather logistically difficult to move large missile fleets around (your average missile battleship weighs about 1300kT, while a beam battleship weighs between about 380-560kT, but they have the same amount of fuel). Third, many players use Improved Starbases, and the Space Dock cannot build ships heavier than 200kT. Fourth, stargates are key to tactical mobility, and they have mass limits (unless you're Interstellar Traveller).
Being cheap in Ironium is good because minerals run dry in long games (because mineral concentrations decrease by 1 for every 125kT mined; even with Beginner: Max Minerals turned on, each planet only has ~12500 kT of each mineral to mine) and the limiting one is usually Ironium because all ships cost large amounts of it. Beam ships cost similar amounts of Ironium, Boranium and Germanium, while missile ships cost a huge amount of Ironium, quite a bit of Germanium and relatively little Boranium. In the endgame when Nubians come out, Omega Torpedo Nubians are indeed superior to Anti-Matter Pulverizer Nubians ship for ship at killing opposing Nubians... but an Omega Torpedo Nubian costs five times as much Ironium as an Anti-Matter Pulverizer Nubian, and when you're reduced to mineral alchemy (costs 100 resources, gives 1kT of each mineral), it's simply not cost-effective.
Being unable to sweep mines adds another requirement for support to missile ships. Combined with their lesser mobility (not fitting through stargates, using more fuel), you will find that while torpedoes/missiles are indeed somewhat better in fleet battle, they are rather ineffective in a spread-out, skirmishing war. In addition, once Mega Disruptors appear, beams become a key component even of fleet battles, as each missile or torpedo only destroys one chaff while each Mega Disruptor destroys four (or more, if boosted by capacitors).
Ordinary torpedoes are not, in fact, useless. If you run the numbers on Armageddon Missiles vs. Omega Torpedoes, with 3 Battle Nexi backing each against 3 Jammers 30, you will find that Omega Torpedoes are 12% more effective while costing 16% less. Against 3 IS Jammers 50, or 6 Jammers 30, the Omega Torpedoes are a full 60% more effective while still costing 16% less. They also weigh less; see above for why that's important. In general, you'll find that against moderately jammed, shielded targets each generation of torpedo beats the generation of missile before it (though not by a lot). Against heavily jammed targets (and jammers can always come pretty close to matching computers since they have the same asymptote; computers just get there faster) it's pretty heavily in favour of the torps.
Yes, using higher-tech, more powerful hulls is basically always superior for main fleet battle, and the Nubian in particular makes all prior warship hulls practically obsolete (particularly with Regenerating Shields). This is intended; it is the main reason to research Construction tech (note that there's a big gulf in Construction between 16 and 24 where you get nothing of value; the Nubian's the sweet reward for crossing that gap). Same basic idea as why Juggernaut Missiles are strictly superior to Jihad Missiles.
Armour is stronger than shields because armour is heavy (15 kT for organic armour, 30kT+ for standard vs. 1kT for all standard shields and 10kT for IS Croby Sharmor) and because it has to be repaired, while shields regenerate instantly after a battle or mine hit. There's also the Lesser Racial Trait "Regenerating Shields" to consider. Against beams there is also the "shield stacking" effect; beams must remove an entire token's shields before they can start killing the ships. Indeed, shields are generally considered superior to armour and the "Regenerating Shields" LRT overpowered because of the various advantages of shields.
"Distracting enemy missile boats with tough, jammed warships" is in fact generally what happens. Beam ships cost lots of resources and Boranium, while missile ships cost lots of Ironium. The targetting algorithm assesses "value" based on resources + Boranium cost; as such, beamers will in almost all cases be far more attractive than missile boats. And chaff is overrated and misused by much of the Stars! community; it's not nearly as good as a lot of people think it is. Speaking of chaff, it was an intended mechanic and is not as unrealistic as you think.
[Updated on: Fri, 10 June 2016 23:46] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: Thoughts on weapon balance |
Wed, 25 July 2018 03:01 |
|
talkingbologna | | Senior Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 86
Registered: November 2016 Location: 1947 | |
|
Could well be that thousands of small, pilotless drones with weapons could be used for many purposes in combat and out, including taking fire for a larger, piloted ship.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 10:57:00 EDT 2024
|