Weapon balance for the future

[cmdrnarrain]

I think before you get too far ahead of yourself's on changing weapons, I would like to see a lot of the bugs fixed first. Yea, weapons need some work but realistically this is a minor problem which won't be resolved until the computer opponent gets a whole lot smarter which means it will have to cheat.

Personally, I would want the programmers to put their energy into improving the user interface, fixing bugs, and improving the AI routines. If they get these problems worked out, then they can worry about potential expansions.

Thanks

[Litjan]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

no fighters please... fighters make absolutely no sense in space.
A manned fighter is limited by the squishy pilot and the need for life supported (VERY limited), an unmanned fighter is just a fancy missile you can ram into your enemy (while firing).

I guess you can call them drones, that would be better...

Anyways, that will also require a lot more work on the developers part.

Doubling the firing rate of lasers will move them from "a lot lower DPS" to "slightly higher DPS" than torpedoes. but they will still suffer a lot from range.

How about giving both torpedoes AND laser equal range... BUT, give lasers higher miss changes and higher damage, and torpedoes lower (to none) miss changes and lower damage?

I guess one of the advantages that fighters have over "regular ships" (both in space and in the air) is that they don´t need to travel long-range to get to the fight, carriers take them there. Thats why they can forego longrange propulsion (huge fueltanks/hyperspace drives), which makes them advantagous from a thrust/weight ratio. Further advantages are the small sensor signature. The pilot is a disadvantage in some sort, but so far computer technology has not been able to replace it. In the future (DW) we might see autonomous "USV´s" that are - while not going kamikaze - able to fulfill the traditional "fighter role" in space.
I agree that while it would be "cool", it is probably not worth the effort of implementing it correctly.

As for changing the lasers to miss more and the torpedoes to miss less - I think it should be the other way round. From a "realistic" point of view it is far easier to aim and hit with a laser, since you just "point and click". The laser is instantaneous, any aiming error would come from the ability of the mount to track the target in real-time for fast and nimble targets (think clumsy, slow guy trying to keep a flashlight on a sparrow).

A lot more can go wrong with a guided weapon, ECM, range considerations, maneuverability, point defense, etc.

If anything I would increase the ability to evade enemy fire (both beam and projectile) for small ships (smaller target) and also scale it with acceleration and maneuvering capability. Conversely make the "heavier weapons" (both beams and torpedoes) less able to track small targets.

This gives small ships a reason to be (just like in the real world), and it offers the player some interesting choices (choices are fun!).

Jan

[Munchies]

People need variety to stay interested. It is our nature.

Making things more of the same is not the way to go. If you made all the weapons the same range.. well, might as well just have one weapon category.

Also people, please stop trying to justify if something belongs in this game based on real life. This whole game does not make sense. We can not colonize other planets, travel near the speed of light, or have weapons capable of destroying planets.. *sigh*



As for fighters..
Life support on an escort is no different than life support on a fighter. It is just smaller and needs to rebase at it's carrier much sooner to refuel and such.
Just pretend they have inertial stabilizers on them and artificial gravity generators just like on all the other ships.

As far as them being in the game, I have no opinion. If the Devs like them, then ok. If not, then that is ok too.


You have to open your mind up a little to the possibilities.

[alexalexuk]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

ORIGINAL: alexalexuk

make the AI adjust to human custom design ships - is the most important thing here.

there is really no need. Combat is simple enough that you can come up with effective "generic" ships for the AI to build.

i dont see the ability for you to create ships for the AI to build for AI races, and what would be the point in that?

[Litjan]

ORIGINAL: Munchies


Also people, please stop trying to justify if something belongs in this game based on real life. This whole game does not make sense. We can not colonize other planets, travel near the speed of light, or have weapons capable of destroying planets.. *sigh*

I disagree. We play this game with certain assumptions in the back of our heads. If something works contrary to these assumptions (however "sci-fi" they might be), we are confused, which is not a good gaming experience. People project their beliefs and assumptions into these games, and if some things are just too far-fetched, it will break the "suspension of disbelief", that this (in fact every) game tries to achieve.

If you say that the game mechanics shouldn´t make sense because it makes assumptions that are not "real" (like FTL-travel), then I guess you don´t get a kick out of most movies or games that are out there, do you? [;)]

Greets, Jan

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: alexalexuk

ORIGINAL: taltamir

ORIGINAL: alexalexuk

make the AI adjust to human custom design ships - is the most important thing here.

there is really no need. Combat is simple enough that you can come up with effective "generic" ships for the AI to build.

i dont see the ability for you to create ships for the AI to build for AI races, what would be the point in that?

I meant simple enough to program an intelligent auto design. I already described one in detail.

[Gertjan]

Every single 4x space game has suffered from deficiencies in the tactical combat. Either is was abstracted to the point of being no fun (GalCiv2) or the AI was just plain stupid (MOO2) or didn´t work correctly (MOO3).

I disagree. Galciv 2 was perfect. Just rock/paper/scissors and of course some trade off in space in designs (speed vs range vs weapons etc.). Please devs make it an easy fix which the AI also is capable of dealing with, including on automation. So I dont need to micromanage design. I like this game because it has automated ship design.

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan

Every single 4x space game has suffered from deficiencies in the tactical combat. Either is was abstracted to the point of being no fun (GalCiv2) or the AI was just plain stupid (MOO2) or didn´t work correctly (MOO3).

I disagree. Galciv 2 was perfect. Just rock/paper/scissors and of course some trade off in space in designs (speed vs range vs weapons etc.). Please devs make it an easy fix which the AI also is capable of dealing with, including on automation. So I dont need to micromanage design. I like this game because it has automated ship design.

galciv 2 did not HAVE tactical combat... combat was always automatic, you only got to watch... and it was NOT rock paper scissors.

Rock/paper/scissors requires that each tech defeats the other, rock defeats scissors, scissors defeat paper, and paper defeats rock.

In galciv2 missiles had to overcome point defense, laser had to overcome shields, and mass drivers had to overcome armor. In no way did having better lasers improve your defenses against mass drivers or missiles, nor did missiles improve your chances against lasers or mass drivers, nor did mass drivers help against lasers and missiles.
It was a matter of "do I have the right defense vs their attack". Interestingly, each of the defenses provided 1/3rd its defense value vs the other attacks. So shields gave full defense vs lasers, but only 1/3 defense vs missiles and mass drivers.

The best defense was thus doing tons of damage so you kill the enemy before he shoots you. Being the aggressor so you shoot first (and one hit kill them), and having as much HP as possible (because HP is equally effective against all attacks).

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Litjan
Which brings me to another question, game mechanics-wise: Are battles always computed as in "close up view", or just the ones being watched by the player? In Falcon4.0 only battles within a certain distance from the player where actually "played out", while the other ones all over the battlefield where computed outcomes (taking into account propabilities of kill ratios and such). If we add too much CPU-computation to the battles, then we can´t afford to calculate many of them at once, and you will invariably see different outcomes between "viewed" and "abstracted" battles.

Every battle is resolved fully as if you were watching it, whether you are watching it or not.

[Dadekster]

Ok, science be da*ned [;)] This is what I'd love to see. [&o]

LASERS-

Large > Good tracking, good range, huge power consumption, decent damage and slow fire rate. The standard for ship of the line slugfests at decent ranges and good for station take downs. Anything smaller than destroyer size and tracking suffers. This allows escorts and frigates to remain useful against capitals in swarm tactics, unless the capital devotes space to small rails/lasers which of course means it is now at a disadvantage in a capital ship duel. Lasers are good at range versus rails, but not as good; however, close the gap some and lasers should reign all things considered due to rate of fire over rails.

Small > Great, great tracking, decent range, small power consumption, decent damage and fast fire rate. Great as point defense against missles, bad versus torps and good against smaller sized ships too fast to hit with large lasers such as escorts and frigates. Enough damage to give cruisers sized targets some concern in number, pack a lunch against capital sized targets however.

** Lasers are great against armour and average against shields.


RAIL GUNS/MASS DRIVERS/SLUGS etc-

Large > Bad tracking, great range, low, low power consumption, great damage and slow, slow fire rate. Good for ship of the line slugfests at great ranges. These babies are your first choice for station or stationary target (like a planet) take downs due to sheer range and damage per shot. These work very well against other capitals but not as well as lasers due to range involved and tracking. Even a capital has a chance of dodging one of these. These should outrange lasers on average as well as outdamage them at great ranges.

Small > Decent tracking, decent range, low power consumption, great danage, medium fire rate. Great for point defense against torps and lousy against missles while good against smaller sized ships just like small lasers above.

** Rail guns are great against shields and average against armour.


MISSLES-

No sizes here, just what I think a missle should be for gameplay. Tech could influence # per salvo, payload, speed etc. Overall they are cheap, fast and lightly armoured with a small payload. Basically the idea is you spam missles. The more the merrier as they are easily killed by small guns (maybe fighters one day as well). Lasers are the bane of missles due to high ROF and enough damage to kill missles in one shot. Rail guns have problems tracking fast moving missles. They can still hit, just not as efficent as lasers. As far as what damage they excell at, I am tbh undecided if they should be good against say shields or just all around spread out damage. I'd like to say shields though. Call it the shield systems have trouble keeping up with the repeated hammer blows of multiple impacts.


TORPS-

Same thing, no sizes. As tech gets better they carry bigger payloads are more heavily armoured etc. Torps are more quality over quantity. They are slower than missles, but carry a much higher payload and are much harder to take down either via ECM or small battery fire. Railguns work best against these has they have more punch than lasers and torps use armour (inherent in game, you don't build torps) as their defense which small railguns are more successful against. As far as damage, same as missles. Sort of undecided, but I'd make these good against armour. Just the thought of one of these punching through a capital ships armour gives me chills.


Ok, so like I said, not too worried about science and omg don't you know a laser can't work against armour like that and missles make no sense in space warfare [;)] That said, I just want to see certain weapon plaforms perform better at some things than others. I'd like to see the AI show up in a fleet of capitals sporting lots of rails with picket ships packing lasers and me wondering if I can close the range enough with my caps since they are laser heavy and if my pickets have enough missles to overcome their small lasers. Or whatever scenario. I have no idea how something like this codes but the only thing I can think of that would be hard is to make it so that large weapons systems like the rails and lasers don't attempt to shot down torps or missles as it would never work (maybe 1 in a million but for gameplay don't bother). Other than that small weapons would fire on anything and everything with a prevalance towards missles/torps when those are within range. This would prevent the scenario where your picket ship is firing on an enemy capital in range and a missle shower is launched by another enemy ship. I'd be pretty mad if the picket ship ignored the missles and continued to plink away at the enemy capital it had been shooting at. If those things could be worked in as well as some sort of formation control I'd be in heaven as far as combat goes. Get the AI to build ships either scripted or smartly via reactions to your designs and other AI designs so people who don't want to be bothered with designing ships and fighting battles and it's a win-win.

Actually anything like this would be great...this is just what I think about when I see weapons balancing. [:'(]

[taltamir]

actually, missiles and lasers make the most sense... it is arguable which is better.
it is other weapons that make no sense, especially fighters, but to a lesser degree mass drivers too

[Dadekster]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

actually, missiles and lasers make the most sense... it is arguable which is better.
it is other weapons that make no sense, especially fighters, but to a lesser degree mass drivers too

Well it makes no sense to commute to work in gas guzzling SUV's and expensive sports cars, but people still do. [;)]

[taltamir]

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

ORIGINAL: taltamir

actually, missiles and lasers make the most sense... it is arguable which is better.
it is other weapons that make no sense, especially fighters, but to a lesser degree mass drivers too

Well it makes no sense to commute to work in gas guzzling SUV's and expensive sports cars, but people still do. [;)]

first of all, BS.
SUVs are far safer in crashes then smaller cars, potentially more comfortable, and some people have the money to afford those benefits (I use drive a honda accord because I don't have the money for an SUV).
And it has been scientifically proven that driving a sports car gets you laid more (no really, it has been. universities do studies on human sexuality...)

Secondly.
this is an entirely different level of "sense"...
Japanese cartoons have this notion of a "giant mecha"... its a robot the size of a scyscraper, it is pilotted by a teenager (always!), it usually fights by wielding a SWORD, and it carries it in its HANDS... which it also uses to grab guns...
That type of weapon makes no sense, in fact it will collapse under its own weight due to gravy-stress. And if you somehow have some magic field as they often due, putting it on an airplane, a tank, or a cruise ship would be far more effective.
In older fantasy they had "air ships" where they literally took giant gunships, put propellors on them, and said they fly and "cross the Ts" with other air ships.
In older movies people struck by lightening would develop super powers... or they would use the magic of the COMPUTER to do real world magic... or any one of other ridiculous notions that not even a child will buy today.

Basically there is a whole subset of fantasy that just seems stupid to anyone with rudimentary understanding of the field. Manned fighter craft in space are exactly that.

read this: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html

You know, when I think about it, it seems that the creators of DW really did their research...
Anyways, creating new weapons is a serious task, there are already weapons of various kinds, and the AI automatically uses a mix of both... they just need to be balanced somehow so that both are useful.

[Dadekster]

I've lost count how many traffic collision I have been too but I can tell you I have seen just as many people get transported to the hospital out of SUV's as people in cars so that whole SUV's are safer thing as far as I am concerned is BS. SUV's tend to roll easily eitehr avoiding TC's or afeter getting into one and people have a false sense of security in them making them develope lousy driving habits. I've lost count how many have passed me in the rain doing 80+ miles per hour thinking they could just power through puddles on the freeway. People in trucks have the same problem (not big rigs but Rams and F-series etc). Yes, it is all about money which is why there are some many of them out there. Sports cars and large SUV's are a status symbol in this country.

I think there is an important difference in how we play DW or maybe games in this genre. I don't pay as much attention to realism and what is possible due to laws of science as you do? You are completely correct about the mecha example. But if you are watching that and thinking that anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of the field should be stupid if they believe stuff like that is possible, what are you watching it for?

Speaking of airships and anime I was watching the "The Last Exile" a while ago. [:)] Good show and the airship fights were cool. Reminded me of WW1 & 2 naval battles sorta.

[Pipewrench]

I do not know if this has been talked about yet but to make beam weapons relevent why not introduce chaff type conter-measures.

missiles are directed away from the ship to allow the beams to become effective.

If a player researches too heavily into missile tech and runs into a opponent who has the counter-measure then the beam tech would become king.

[Munchies]

ORIGINAL: Litjan


I disagree. We play this game with certain assumptions in the back of our heads. If something works contrary to these assumptions (however "sci-fi" they might be), we are confused, which is not a good gaming experience. People project their beliefs and assumptions into these games, and if some things are just too far-fetched, it will break the "suspension of disbelief", that this (in fact every) game tries to achieve.

If you say that the game mechanics shouldn´t make sense because it makes assumptions that are not "real" (like FTL-travel), then I guess you don´t get a kick out of most movies or games that are out there, do you? [;)]

Greets, Jan

Did you even read my post. Perhaps you don't understand.

So you are saying everything should be based on real life circumstances without using your imagination and getting immersed in it?
I guess you don't know about things like that and never enjoy a good scifi movie because it is too weird and not real.. LOL

And as for fighters in space. I can count many many many games/movies that use fighters in space. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Gate, Starfleet Universe game, and on and on.
Personally I don't want to see fighters anytime soon. There are too many other things that need to be done right now.

Oh, and I never said that the game mechanics shouldn't make sense.
I said that people don't need to say that "The ***** ****** don't belong in this game because it is not possible in real life." crap that needs to stop.
Re-read my post again, or better yet, read it for the first time.

I can use my imagination, which is looks to me that you can't. (Want to get personal, then I can too)

[lostsm]

why not just have the ships move more? not as in running all over in all direction, but just simple movement, much like how they do when patrolling a set point in space.

for example, i've seen one of my ships chasing a pirate. my ship had inferior lasers and missiles. it kept chasing and shooting missiles, but because the rat was running away in the opposite direction from where the missiles came from, it effectively outdistanced itself from any damage.

if ships moved more instead of staying relatively put i think this could result in a lot more misses. really isn't the point of torpedoes mainly to take out heavily armored stationary objects and not to take out ships that cruise around at thousands of KM/h?


edit: + increase visible ECM effectiveness

[Krippakrull]

1. Make ECM work better against seekers than guns. Since there are two components supposedly communating with (I just assume they are networked somehow since targetting comps work for missiles as well, if not, there's no way you could or would protect and harden the electronics in a missile as well as the ones in a space ship anyway) each other there are more options for electronic warfare to work. If done right, that's probably all that has to be done to missiles.
2. Introduce smaller scale beam weapons. Power hungry like hell, quite resource expensive and dissapating damage. On the flip side, decent damage/weight ratio and excellent accuracy. Also, beams look cool.

As for fighters, they are cool and all, but I'm with Taltamir on this. I can't possibly imagine what good fighters would be in space. Also, I don't see the game coping well with the hundreds (maybe thousands in a big, busy galaxy) of fighter squadrons running around that we would have, much less the thousands of individual fighters we would most likely be talking about if going that route.

[Pipewrench]

Just wanted to say that this has become a fantastic thread that has brought many of us in to really throw out ideas and possibly help in the development.

I would also like to ask that we respect other opinions and refrain from talking down to others ideas. If I type something that seems without manners give me a thumbs down or something and I will apologize. Things can be typed in the heat of an arguement that are a little harsh.

lostsm: I agree with your point about speed. So does speed help in the defense against attack?


Krippakrull: I agree with both your points but I do believe their is a point to fighters and bombers.In my opinion carrier standing off beyond sensor range could pop fighters out ahead to see ahead (AWAC) and escort bombers. Bombers can be used to drop sensor pods, attack unarmed merchants($), or be used in co-ordinated attacks with other capital ships. From what I see is this would have to be in the expansion if anything and would the AI and the graphics card cope? Somehow I doubt it. Deep in my heart I would like a fight in space like a sea battle with even cloaked ships(subs) but it would be too much to impliment..... I still believe there is a point to the craft and the carrier here but would the computer crash with 3 carriers fighting over 1 starbase? LOL

I think we need to help fix the bugs and get the game balanced so that the AI can be a challenge and provide all of us late night campaigns that tax our thinking power to the max. I hope that some of the comments help in the development and pushes an expansion into the plans for next year...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: taltamir

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

ORIGINAL: taltamir

actually, missiles and lasers make the most sense... it is arguable which is better.
it is other weapons that make no sense, especially fighters, but to a lesser degree mass drivers too

Well it makes no sense to commute to work in gas guzzling SUV's and expensive sports cars, but people still do. [;)]

first of all, BS.
SUVs are far safer in crashes then smaller cars, potentially more comfortable, and some people have the money to afford those benefits (I use drive a honda accord because I don't have the money for an SUV).
And it has been scientifically proven that driving a sports car gets you laid more (no really, it has been. universities do studies on human sexuality...)

Secondly.
this is an entirely different level of "sense"...
Japanese cartoons have this notion of a "giant mecha"... its a robot the size of a scyscraper, it is pilotted by a teenager (always!), it usually fights by wielding a SWORD, and it carries it in its HANDS... which it also uses to grab guns...
That type of weapon makes no sense, in fact it will collapse under its own weight due to gravy-stress. And if you somehow have some magic field as they often due, putting it on an airplane, a tank, or a cruise ship would be far more effective.
In older fantasy they had "air ships" where they literally took giant gunships, put propellors on them, and said they fly and "cross the Ts" with other air ships.
In older movies people struck by lightening would develop super powers... or they would use the magic of the COMPUTER to do real world magic... or any one of other ridiculous notions that not even a child will buy today.

Basically there is a whole subset of fantasy that just seems stupid to anyone with rudimentary understanding of the field. Manned fighter craft in space are exactly that.

read this: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html

You know, when I think about it, it seems that the creators of DW really did their research...
Anyways, creating new weapons is a serious task, there are already weapons of various kinds, and the AI automatically uses a mix of both... they just need to be balanced somehow so that both are useful.

I tend to leave my knowledge of the field at work when I am home relaxing watching Sc-Fi Movies, Anime or playing games like DW. I can 'suspend my disbelief' at these times. Most other gamers do as well.

The game is a helluva lot more fun when you leave reality at the door and just enjoy it, instead of trying to justify it with real world physics. So if people want to add in mass drivers, or rail guns, or fighters, let them...they should enjoy the game, not analyze it.