Weapon balance v3

[george moromisato]

Here's the latest spreadsheet on weapon balance:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

This reflects all of the latest changes and also has the new weapon prices. I think we're getting close enough that we should just start testing. My last task is to buff station HP and then I'll release Alpha 1 for playtest. I fully expect to tweak (or even radically change) the balance as actual playtest feedback comes in.

Also, in the spreadsheet, the balExtCost column is the weapon balance excluding any cost considerations. The balance column takes cost into account.

You'll notice there are still many weapons/missiles that are out of balance. Most of the time, it just means the balance calculation is wrong (e.g., disposable missile launcher). Other times, it just means that I don't know exactly how to change the weapon, and I feel it safer to leave it alone. We might want to change them later.

Thanks for all the feedback on weapon balance--it's helped me a lot. I hope you'll be happy with the results in the upcoming Alpha.

[NMS]

In case you missed what I said in the other thread (it was going a bit off topic), I'd like to reiterate that having some balance factors be logarithmic and others be linear may lead to weird results. You could have them all be logarithmic, but that would make the result unintuitive to read (e.g. a score of 7 would be twice as good as a score of 6 with base 2 logs). So I recommend that you calculate the score as a product of all the balance factors, so for instance two factors of -30% (x 0.7) would roughly offset one factor of +100% (x 2).

As for the actual values, it looks to me like WMD is still somewhat undervalued, while range, tracking, and shot speed are very undervalued. Being able to outrange enemies is a huge advantage, so there are big jumps in effectiveness around range 60 and 80. Tracking is arguably better than omni as long as the shot speed is high enough to catch the target, while the benefits of omni depend heavily on shot speed when the weapon is being used in a skirmish role. Shot speeds comparable to or less than the speeds of gunships are a huge penalty to effectiveness of skirmish weapons.

[PM]

Tracking for most weapons is as good as omni, and should be 100, not 50. The only weapon where tracking is not good as omni is chimeric seeker cannon, due to poor range and maneuver. TM7 would be poor except multitarget auto-aim missiles at a target before they track.

Also, while no weapon does this (yet), omni and tracking should not stack, the weapon should use the better of the two only (or count the other much less).

[gunship256]

My last task is to buff station HP and then I'll release Alpha 1 for playtest.

Stations are easy to destroy right now compared to the capital ships that defend them, as the ships have shields, armor, and a lot of internal HP.

One possible solution to this would be to both buff station HP and give stations internal HP regeneration like Dwarg fortresses and friendly stations do. That would make scratch damage and friendly fire much less of a problem for them and give them time to call in reinforcements.

Also, while no weapon does this (yet), omni and tracking should not stack, the weapon should use the better of the two only (or count the other much less).

I think there's some value to having both, but there should definitely be a reduction of one when the other is present. In particular, fast ships that are running away and freighters at just about any time have a greater effective tracking missile range when the launcher is omni because the missiles don't have to turn around to hit their target.

[george moromisato]

As for the actual values, it looks to me like WMD is still somewhat undervalued, while range, tracking, and shot speed are very undervalued. Being able to outrange enemies is a huge advantage, so there are big jumps in effectiveness around range 60 and 80. Tracking is arguably better than omni as long as the shot speed is high enough to catch the target, while the benefits of omni depend heavily on shot speed when the weapon is being used in a skirmish role. Shot speeds comparable to or less than the speeds of gunships are a huge penalty to effectiveness of skirmish weapons.

WMD:7 = +50 balance. That means we need to cut DPS about 30% to balance such a weapon. In fact, that's why I had to nerf most howitzers. Are you saying they need more nerfing?

Range is likewise already pretty expensive. Howitzers get +20 balance for 60 extra ls of range, which cost them ~13% in DPS.

You may be right about tracking, but if so I would have to nerf almost every tracking weapon except for the SmartCannon.

[gunship256]

You may be right about tracking, but if so I would have to nerf almost every tracking weapon except for the SmartCannon.

Tracking is better than omni for a ship that can turn quickly. The reverse might be true for freighters.

[Xephyr]

How are fragmentation weapons being handled?

The 800F and ZG24 MAGs are undoubtedly overpowered now, but I'm willing to playtest them before suggesting further changes.

[AssumedPseudonym]

The 800F and ZG24 MAGs are undoubtedly overpowered now, but I'm willing to playtest them before suggesting further changes.

 I’d say we’re probably at a point where we should apply that to the entirety of the weapon list. Play around with them a bit in-game, see how they feel before trying to monkey around with them any further. The numbers are only going to tell you so much, after all.

[NMS]

Okay, I think I'm caught up on the proposed changes. Overall, I feel good about them. I've been saying for a while that howitzers were overpowered, fragmentation weapons were terrible, and the WMD mechanics were a big balance issue.

But I think the WMD change doesn't go quite far enough. At 10%, most WMD0 weapons in the game will still do 1 damage to compartments most of the time, so fire rate would continue to be the most important factor. At 20%, how much damage they do would be relevant for all but the lowest damage shots. You could also eliminate the minimum of 1, and it would only be a 50% reduction in effectiveness for unenhanced basic laser weapons. And you could tag weapons in a way that accurately sums up the effects of WMD:

WMD1 -> "+25% internal damage"
WMD2 -> +60%
WMD3 -> +100%
WMD4 -> +150%
WMD5 -> +215%
WMD6 -> +300%
WMD7 -> +400%

You could use this wording, with higher numbers, for your proposal, but it wouldn't be accurate because of the minimum damage.

---

There are also some specific issues I noticed:

- Heretic Station now stocks less ammo than a normal armed Commonwealth colony.

- Makayev dealers still have somewhat limited quantities of Red and Black Strelkas, which don't restock. EDIT: The improvement to Green Strelkas may help the Makayev launcher stay viable until the Reds and Blacks start showing up in places that restock, though.

- Unguided NAMI missiles gained range when their speed increased; some are now up to 144 ls. The KM120 Brute was fairly short before, but others really didn't need it.

- Guided NAMI missiles didn't gain speed. EDIT: This may be intentional.

- The new 600 Hexagene MAG is only 4/3 as powerful as the 400. "33% more Hexagene, for only twice the price!™" It's pretty hard for MAGs to be overpowered, given their terrible shot speeds.

- The 98R High-flux MAG is slower than most MAGs at 20% c. The 3K Siege MAG is 15, but the rest are 30. (not new)

- XM900 ammo boxes should be military, unless they're designed to conceal their contents from customs.

- Benchmarking doesn't appear to take reflecting armor into account. This is tricky because the chance of reflection depends on the damage the armor has taken. If I recall correctly, it's 98% * current hp / max hp. In that case, the effectiveness multiplier from reflection is 50 for shots that can destroy the armor in one non-reflected hit, but approaches -ln(.02)/.98 ≈ 3.99 as the number of shots needed approaches infinity.

- The Hecates cannon is losing half its range? Will this affect the range the Deimos uses it at? Why would the Ares use a worse version of the (old-fashioned) Fusionfire? And could we at least have one weapon in this category with powerUse less than 1000 so we can put it on autons?

- If they end up with the same WMD, there's not much advantage for the Mark VII howitzer compared to the dual Fusionfire to justify taking an extra slot.

- The (dual) X-ray laser's powerUse is down to 20 MW? It's twice as powerful as the 14 MW dual turbolaser. That's the same as the new value for the omni version, which will have half the (effective) fire rate. Meanwhile, the RK15 is up to 10 MW, despite being a turreted version of the 6 MW AK15? (This is an issue with omni weapons: their effectiveness is higher in proportion to their damage output. But their DPS is low for their level, so it may be balanced as well as logical for their power use to be low.)

---

Tracking for most weapons is as good as omni, and should be 100, not 50. The only weapon where tracking is not good as omni is chimeric seeker cannon, due to poor range and maneuver. TM7 would be poor except multitarget auto-aim missiles at a target before they track.

Also, while no weapon does this (yet), omni and tracking should not stack, the weapon should use the better of the two only (or count the other much less).

Really, the important thing is what fraction of shots hit the target. That's a complicated function of shot speed, omni or swivel, your ship's turn rate, maneuver rate for tracking weapons, the speed and maneuverability of the target, and sometimes maximum range.

---

WMD:7 = +50 balance. That means we need to cut DPS about 30% to balance such a weapon. In fact, that's why I had to nerf most howitzers. Are you saying they need more nerfing?

Well, most of them will be WMD4 (comparable to the old WMD5), which isn't as big a penalty. I would weigh it higher, but not too much, especially if you improve WMD0 and/or give capital ships thicker armor.

Range is likewise already pretty expensive. Howitzers get +20 balance for 60 extra ls of range, which cost them ~13% in DPS.

I would give up way more than that for the ability to avoid all enemy fire. (EDIT: except from ships that can outrun me, obviously. But they're rarely much of a threat to a reasonably equipped player.) If capital ships were smarter and stations could deal better with long range bombardment, this would be less of an issue though.

You may be right about tracking, but if so I would have to nerf almost every tracking weapon except for the SmartCannon.

Tracking weapons are really good.

[george moromisato]

How are fragmentation weapons being handled?

The 800F and ZG24 MAGs are undoubtedly overpowered now, but I'm willing to playtest them before suggesting further changes.

Yeah, I'm a little worried about that to. I apply a 7/8ths discount on fragmentation. That is, the balance calculations assume that only 1/8th of the fragments will hit a target (on average). This might be a radical underestimate.

[PM]

With pre-1.7 balance, omni felt more like 150 instead of 100. No feelings on omni value of 100 for the moment.

WMD seems okay. Currently, there seems no reason to WMD beyond what feels good.

As for range for pre-1.7, it seemed ranges between 30 and 80 were effectively the same, and ranges between 10 and 30 seemed to be worth up to +25%, and ranges of 80+ seemed like up to -25% penalty.

For now, I have no problem with current range and WMD adjustments.

WMD1 -> "+25% internal damage"
WMD2 -> +60%
WMD3 -> +100%
WMD4 -> +150%
WMD5 -> +215%
WMD6 -> +300%
WMD7 -> +400%

This would make high-WMD weapons useless against gunships.

P.S. I was surprised about the worth of WMD and range in the table. It is worth more than I thought, when I balanced my mod weapons.

[PM]

George, when I used my previous level-based observations for balance, I treated fragmentation like a half to full level worth of DPS.

Current 1.6 DPS for fragmentation is decent, maybe slightly overpriced, by a half level to full level, maybe.

[george moromisato]

Okay, I think I'm caught up on the proposed changes....

Lots of good suggestions in your thread--thank you. I'll consider and incorporate as appropriate.

A couple of random points:

1. There is no longer a minimum WMD damage. Since the damage is stochastic, even a laser cannon has a chance of doing damage, but it will be more like 1 point every 4 hits or so.

2. I definitely intend to improve how the AI deals with long-range attacks. It should be harder for the player to snipe from range unopposed. For example, if the player isn't moving, enemies should plant themselves on the player's flank and keep firing away until the player moves. Not for Alpha 1, though.

[Xephyr]

Yeah, I'm a little worried about that to. I apply a 7/8ths discount on fragmentation. That is, the balance calculations assume that only 1/8th of the fragments will hit a target (on average). This might be a radical underestimate.

In my experience that's an underestimate.

Although, I do think MAGs are underrepresented in the late game - it might be practical to bump up the ZG24 a level or two and keep the new damage levels. Since I play a MAG-heavy loadout I'll be able to test them out pretty thoroughly in the Alpha, so we'll see how it looks.

[george moromisato]

George, when I used my previous level-based observations for balance, I treated fragmentation like a half to full level worth of DPS.

Current 1.6 DPS for fragmentation is decent, maybe slightly overpriced, by a half level to full level, maybe.

For purposes of balance I'm assuming only 1/8th of the fragments hit, but I think I need to increase to 1/2 or 1/4. It depends on the target, of course. For capital ships and stations, it's closer to 1/2 hitting. For gunships, it's more like 1/8th.

What do you think a reasonable fraction would be?