FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Missile vs. Ballistic vs. Energy Suggestion
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Drop Shock Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frizz
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Posts: 3814

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:06 am    Post subject: Missile vs. Ballistic vs. Energy Suggestion Reply with quote

Hi all -

I've been thinking about how to better balance Missile vs. Ballistic vs. Energy weapons and here's what I've come-up with:

Range caps for vehicle-mounted weapons -

Ballistic weapons get a range cap of 7 squares
Missile weapons get a range cap of 8 squares
Energy weapons get a range cap of 10 squares

(To-hit penalties would be unchanged) I think this levels the playing-field in severals ways, it gives Energy weapons a slightly needed boost and brings Missile weapons down a peg.

It does play havoc with base attacks, but that can be balanced later (think of this as a vehicle vs. vehicle pass, vehicle vs. building can be handled later).

Comments?
_f
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cabal
Advanced


Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 537

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Lol.
That will totally kill ballistic weapons. They are already unpopular.. why lower them even more?
Not a good idea.
I was thinking that missles should have a 2 turn recharge time. Missles in real life take a while to reload.. why not put that in tinywarz?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bolshack
Advanced


Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 895
Location: Here somewhere...

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

umm frizz i think that people would now start abusing of energy weapons , like they would do for each weapon , there should be smth to stop doing that
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Mallen
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1128
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As another fan of the ballistic weapons, i'm against this.

But then again - i'm actually pretty happy how the weaponary is now. Although i do feel Energy, if not ballistics as well need a better option to boost their damage, perhaps tweaking a couple of existing mods or merits, or adding something new (notice the calypso recently had a damage increase - i think this is the right step to take.)

Another issure yaro brought up is the CE factor. Whirlwinds are by far the cheapest most effective PvP unit, perhaps this could be altered.

Although one of my favourite thoughts, it bring back the old complexity relationship with mods and vehicles. This might alter some meka set-ups but there are always alternatives. (i mean where only advanced mekas can use advanced mods. although it might start to hinder Ballistic/energy units as much a missiles - i might be worth looking into)
_________________


"Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is topping your white ewe" -- Othello, Act 1, Scene 1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jester
Intermediate


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 235
Location: Beyond the realms of imagination

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mind the energy weapon cap so much but it can be abused by people reducing charge times. Then you have weapons that can do huge damage at long range. Very unfair against ballistic and missles.

Also, if ballistic and missle weapons are going to have a cap it should be the same. There's already enough people using only WWs out there, I'd hate it to be the only really effective vehicle in this game.
_________________
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XDestroyer
Intermediate


Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 228

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you shouldn't bring down missiles.. that will change the PvP in TW dramaticly 0.o
with the energy im ok cuz they need a boost but energy weps should get a small bonus of to-hit
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Sonya
Simple


Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bad Space Monkey, no messing up the weapon system any more. You've created one, leave it be, don't toss a monkey wrench in the mess. We like the weapons how they are, don't change them.



On a different note, please change the union member ability back.


PS no puns were intended in this
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flip
Simple


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the to hit are the prob nothing else, changing the ranges on balistic and missile weps wont change the fact u over negged the energy weps when everyone was moaning about how powerful they are and the 1 hit kill strat that was employed by most,

Remove the to hit penalties and bonuses on energy and missiles and increase the range of balistic mods to allow max range possibilitys for all players not just those in special factions or with specific crews most balistic units have such a poor range to start with there totally out classed,

Giving players more options to use energy, missile and balistic units for lvling and pvp deployments will improve gameplay for all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Z4
Simple


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When we say "energy weapon" lasers are first to came to mind.
Time required for light to travel short distances is negligible, so maybe instead of adding range caps energy weapons could be unaffected by "Target moved" penalty (no need to predict target movement, just shoot at it) and take decreased "Attacker moved" penalty (instability caused by movement has lower influence on accuracy).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xebo
Intermediate


Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 232

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

at pvp, this will not make much difference, other than misisle overpowering ballistic a lil bit,1 square can make a huge difference, since one can attack, and can probably finish the battle of, and the other dying helplessly, hoping a whirlwind with fire mission and paint will miss. GIVEN that ballistic can shoot from range 0-7 and missile only can hit nicely at range 5-8, so at range 0-4 ballistic has and advantage, but at range 8, missile will kill,period.

now my suggestion, same range ballistic, but diff to hits,like missiles power is long range right? ballistics power, in real life as well, is short range since were talking eloping and momentum etc.

so just opposite of missile, better to hit at 1-4,bad at 5-8, so each can have its unique advantage. savvy?

now for ngy, its got 10 range, so all u got to do, is put all to hit additives and u got a 10 range base killer, so suggestion again, same range,8, then same number of charges, BUT, even more damage. so the balance IMHO would be:

misisle, 8 range, good to hit on 5-8
ballistic 8 range, good to hit on 1-4
energy 8 range, good to hit on 1-4, with recharge, BUT more damage since recharge and damage will be the only difference this will have over ballistics.

another option, but more complicated, (which i know yaro's mathematical ability will be easily be decoded):
like for ballistic, the farther the target, the lesser acuracy it has, and the missile vise versa, so at range 0-1 missile is almost null and ballistic at 7-8.unless fire mission, paint, aimed shot and stationart hits. will make mekas live longer hehe.

also, frizz u can still make it 10 range, but above suggestions, will be much better.

Razz

chill
_________________
Frozen Delight
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBgun
Simple


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:00 am    Post subject: plz don't lower missiles Reply with quote

Plz don't lower the missile range because then 'listas won't have a big advantage, bases will be harder to kill as medium missiles can shoot at the attacker before they can and heavy lasers with vet or elite gunnary could wipe out any missile vechiclewhen it is in range to use the missiles. PvP might also suffer if the missiles have less range then the energy weapons aspeople would mod up energy vechicles and the missiles would have no real purpose anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mallen
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1128
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On Xebo's suggestion: All i can see this really doing, is making Ballistics even less used. It would mean that Ballistics would be pretty unlikely to score a hit at long range (where most PvP takes place)
Ballistics are fine as they are now, they can still score hits at the longer range, but on the off chance a combat is more drawn out and they can get inside a Missile's optimum range, they aren't hindered by this in close fighting.

If you changed this Ballistics would be wiped off the PvP map (and would probably see even less Bandit use, poor range + ammo = barely used weapon type)

I also wouldn't agree with simply removing all bonuses/penalties on all weapon types, as this would make everything too similar, variety is the spice of life

However - i do agree with Xebo when he says that 1 range makes all the difference.
_________________


"Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is topping your white ewe" -- Othello, Act 1, Scene 1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sonya
Simple


Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do we need to screw with things to begin with? Honestly, why do we need to change the weapons around? They seem okay the way they are, and half these suggestions I've seen, pardon my speaking, truely suck in my opinion. Just leave everything the way they are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tessie
Intermediate


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a bit unsure what to think about this. I see two problems with Frizz' original suggestion. First, it doesn't make sense that energy weapons, meant to be short-range weapons, suddenly becomes the only weapons with a range 10 cap. Also, as other people commented, it would further limit ballistic weapons.

But on the other hand, I don't have any great ideas about fixing this issue. So far, I think the best idea is Cabal's two-turn reload suggestion. I'm a bit worried that it may limit missile weapons too much, though.

One idea I got, is to do like Cabal said, and have missile weapons fire every other turn, but also remove the range cap for them, so units with missiles can use other units as spotters. Hopefully, that will make the missiles long range hitters, while the 2-turn relaoad makes sure they are not overpowered.

An extended version of that idea, is to give every missile weapon a "Volley" stat. This would be a bit more complicated, but lemme try to explain:
- Every missile weapon is assigned a volley stat, similar to the recharge stat of energy weapons. This stat represents how long it would take to completely reload the missiles that are fired in one turn. I'm thinking the volley stat should mostly be 2 or 3, and 1 or 4 for some weapons (Volley stat of 1 means it works exactly like today).
- Like energy weapons, after firing a missile weapon, the volley is reduced to 1, and is increased by 1 every turn after that.
- The difference from energy weapons is that missile weapons may fire again before being completely reloaded, so if a weapon have a max volley of 2, it will still fire every turn, but after the first shot, it will fire at half strength, untill it stops firing and is given time to fully reload.
- Also, missile weapons keep their ammo stat, which is reduced by one every time the volley stat is increased. Basicly, the volley stat thus means ammo loaded and the ammo stat meas how much is left to reload with.
- Since the volley stat means the weapon will be firing multiple rounds in a single turn when it is fully loaded, the damage stat would have to be divided by the volley stat, and the ammo stat would have to be multiplied by the volley stat.

An example:
If we take the wraith light launcher mod (range 2, damage 5, ammo 10) and give it a volley stat of, say, 3. That would mean it takes 3 turns to fully reload after firing. Also, when fully loaded it would fire 3 rounds, so the ammo would have to be increased to 30, and the damage reduced to 1.6, perhaps rounded up to 2.
When it first fires, it would fire three rounds at it's target. I think it would be best if each round could hit or miss individually, but perhaps it is better if either all or none of the rounds hit. Say this was a real easy target, so all three rounds hit, and the target takes 3*2=6 damage (or perhaps 3*1.6=5 damage). The volley stat is then set to 0, then the game subtracts 1 from ammo and adds it to volley, so volley is 1 next round.
If the weapon is still in range of its target next round, it will still still fire, but it will only do 2 (1.6?) damage and consume 1 ammo by doing so, representing 1/3 of what a normal shot would do. If it does not fire, it would fire at 2/3 strength the next turn and full strength after that.
One thing that would have to be sorted out, is how damage commands add into this. If they were to add damage to each round in a full strength shot, that would a weapon could get 2X or 3X damage bonus, depending on the volley stat for that weapon, so something would have to be done to the commands so the damage bonus is reduced depending on the volley stat.

Sorry for the long post, I'm not even sure how good this idea is, but at least i think it would make missile weapons less powerful while still being a good alternative.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cbx
Council Member


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 2498
Location: Wisbech, England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we are not careful we will just embark on a continuous cycle of trying to reduce the effectiveness of the latest "uber" weapon/meka combo.

It happened before when groundhogs with energy weapons were the dominant combo, now its listas and WWs - if this changes it will just become something else and more tweaks will be suggested.

We are in great danger of chasing our own tails on this.

CBX
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Drop Shock Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group