Plasma weapon balance

[Atarlost]

As of RC4 the plasma weapons available to the player* are as follows:

plasma torch: Level 6; 44 dps @ 24 ls

Kytryn Blaster: Level 9; 39.375 dps @ 64 ls
Ferian Plasma Cannon: Level 9; 100 dps @ 48 ls

Ares Plasma Cannon: Level 10; 58.5 dps @ 78 ls
EI plasma cannon: Level 10; 97.5 dps @ 36 ls
Iocrym Fracture Cannon: Level 10; 187.5 dps @ 10.4-25.6 ls

The plasma torch draws 30mw. The kytryn blaster draws 200mw. The Ares plasma cannon draws 500mw. Everything else on the list draws 300mw.

Something is either way too strong or way too weak, or a mixture of both. Based on doubled damage being worth about a level it's possible to argue that the Kytryn Blaster is balanced with the level 10s and that the level 10s are balanced by range, but the Ares Plasma Cannon has anomolously high power consumption without having damage to match, and its range isn't IMO nearly good enough to merit such poor damage compared to a hypothetical dual Kytryn. The EI has pretty bad range as well that isn't enough better than the Fracture Cannon to merit that weapons extreme damage. The torch and Ferian cannon are left terribly overpowered.

IMO the EI should go to 48 ls; the Ares to 300mw, 60 firerate (78 dps); the torch to 12 damage (24 dps); and the ferian cannon to 30 damage (60 dps).

* ie all but the kytryn launcher which it's effectively impossible to get ammo for, and the Iocrym Avalanche Cannon, which nobody can install

[george moromisato]

I like these suggestions, but I would make some adjustments.

The damage progression for weapons is as follows:

Level 1: 16 dps
Level 2: 20 dps
Level 3: 28 dps
Level 4: 36 dps
Level 5: 48 dps
Level 6: 64 dps
Level 7: 84 dps
Level 8: 108 dps
Level 9: 140 dps
Level 10: 184 dps
Level 11: 240 dps
Level 12: 312 dps
Level 13: 404 dps
Level 14: 524 dps
Level 15: 680 dps
Level 16: 884 dps
Level 17: 1148 dps
Level 18: 1492 dps
Level 19: 1940 dps
Level 20: 2524 dps
Level 21: 3280 dps
Level 22: 4264 dps
Level 23: 5544 dps
Level 24: 7208 dps
Level 25: 9372 dps

[This is calculated by assuming that a standard weapon at level 1 does 4 points of damage at 4 shots per second. To compute level n+1 we take the damage at level n, multiply by 1.3 and round to the nearest integer. The result is list of damage per shot at each level. We multiply each by 4 to arrive at dps.]

So for each of the plasma weapons I would evaluate as follows:

plasma torch: It has lower dps than standard (44 dps vs. 64 standard) and a shorter range, but plasma is not supposed to show up until level 7, so that's an advantage. I think we should leave it alone.

Kytryn blaster: The Kytryn blaster is actually 78 dps, almost half of standard 140 dps. Perhaps we need to increase its damage or fire rate (which would make the Teratons tougher).

Ferian plasma cannon: At 100 dps, the Ferian cannon is below standard (140 dps) but has a fast missile speed. I say leave it alone.

Ares plasma cannon: I think your analysis is correct and this needs to be buffed (particularly since it requires 2 device slots). I think we should bring it to its full 184 dps, by increasing both damage and fire rate. [I'm also OK with decreasing its power consumption.]

EI plasma cannon: Again, I agree about increasing its fire rate and maybe increasing damage. Also, agree that we should increase range to 48 ls.

Iocrym fracture cannon: No changes.

[Atarlost]

Far be it from me to tell you about your own game, but that curve doesn't match reality, at least not for any single damage type. In many instances the damage for level n+1 is not 1.3 times the damage for level n, but doubled. The Dual Tev and Hanzo do double the damage of the Tev which does aproximately double the damage of the lancer. The x-ray does double the damage of the dual turbolaser which does double the damage of the single turbolaser which does more than double the damage of any level 2 laser. Since that curve is not the actual curve you used within any single damage type I don't think it's useful for balancing weapons within a single damage type.

plasma torch: It has lower dps than standard (44 dps vs. 64 standard) and a shorter range, but plasma is not supposed to show up until level 7, so that's an advantage. I think we should leave it alone.

Apart from the plasma torch there is no tier 4 damage type before level 9. That means either a lot of lower level plasma and positron weapons that should exist don't or the plasma torch is not one level ahead of its type but three levels ahead.

Kytryn blaster: The Kytryn blaster is actually 78 dps, almost half of standard 140 dps. Perhaps we need to increase its damage or fire rate (which would make the Teratons tougher).

Ferian plasma cannon: At 100 dps, the Ferian cannon is below standard (140 dps) but has a fast missile speed. I say leave it alone.

Ares plasma cannon: I think your analysis is correct and this needs to be buffed (particularly since it requires 2 device slots). I think we should bring it to its full 184 dps, by increasing both damage and fire rate. [I'm also OK with decreasing its power consumption.]

EI plasma cannon: Again, I agree about increasing its fire rate and maybe increasing damage. Also, agree that we should increase range to 48 ls.

I think visually the EI plasma cannon would look funny with a faster fire rate because of the length of the shot.

[george moromisato]

Apart from the plasma torch there is no tier 4 damage type before level 9. That means either a lot of lower level plasma and positron weapons that should exist don't or the plasma torch is not one level ahead of its type but three levels ahead.

You're right about that (and I was wrong). Tier 4 damage types should logically start at level 10. Levels 7-9 are ion and thermo; Levels 10-12 are positron and plasma. That does change some of my original analysis--plasma weapons at level 9 should do less damage than standard level 9 weapons--maybe equal to 1 level (or 30% damage).

Far be it from me to tell you about your own game, but that curve doesn't match reality, at least not for any single damage type. In many instances the damage for level n+1 is not 1.3 times the damage for level n, but doubled. The Dual Tev and Hanzo do double the damage of the Tev which does aproximately double the damage of the lancer. The x-ray does double the damage of the dual turbolaser which does double the damage of the single turbolaser which does more than double the damage of any level 2 laser. Since that curve is not the actual curve you used within any single damage type I don't think it's useful for balancing weapons within a single damage type.

I've always had trouble with comparing single-shot to dual-shot weapons. Originally, they were two levels apart, but in practice that made the dual-shot weapons too weak relative to their level. Thus, I don't think it's fair to use these to reverse engineer a damage curve--if you try it, I think you will get wild inconsistencies.

But let me recap this way:

I am proposing that damage curve A (which I posted) is the closest match to all of the current weapons (I believe that because that is the curve that I used for the original balancing).

You are proposing that damage curve B is a better fit. Are you saying that B is x2 damage per level? If so, then I think that you will find that doesn't fit actual weapons. If not, can you list B (in the same format that I did)?

Regardless of which curve is closest, do you agree that we need a consistent damage curve, i.e., one of the form:

damage(n+1) = damage(n) * K

If not, then I'm interested in your reasoning.

Of course, when weapons deviate from the standard curve, it is because they have other advantages or disadvantages--and I'm certainly fallible in estimating how much deviation is required to compensate. In those cases I rely a lot on playtesting and player feedback to estimate that balance.

But the question is, what damage curve should we use?

I think visually the EI plasma cannon would look funny with a faster fire rate because of the length of the shot.

You're right--I meant "increase the range" as you suggested.

[Atarlost]

I think 2x damage per level is a better curve within each damage type. If you curve everything from laser to plasma in one curve you won't get it, and I expect it to break down away from the center for each type.

I don't try to compare non-like weapons unless I have to.

If it were just the single/dual groups that did it I wouldn't be so confident in it, but it's not. Ignoring omnis, EMP, and ammo weapons and choosing the most damaging weapon for each level:

Laser goes 15-30-37.5-75-150 if you pick the dual laser as the standard level 2 and the turbolaser as the standard level 3. There's basically no difference between level 2 and 3 in this case which meshes with my observation that the level gap between the level 1 laser and the level 3 omni-laser is 2 levels unlike every other omniweapon gap, all of which are 1 level. For lasers at least level 1 and 3 are as seperate as most adjacent level pairs.

For kinetics the curve is 17.9-33.8-37.5-93.8 (ignoring flensers). Again, level 2 and 3 don't have much of a gap. The level 3-4 gap is a bit larger.

Particle has 0-0-0-33-66-67.5-135. There's another "fake level" at the 5-6 jump.

Blast does 0-0-0-33.8-67.5-78. That last example is a howitzer though and should be expected to pay for that extra range by doing less damage. If you look at the slam cannons instead of the moskvas it's not an exact doubling but is still 1.7x for the level 4-5 jump.

For ion it's 0-0-0-0-0-0-52.5-105-147. One doubling and one ~1.5x for an average of a bit under 1.7x

And thermo gives 78-90-150(300) There are only three non-ammo samples and the second is a howitzer, which means more range and less damage. That's about 1.4x damage per level, but if you take peak damage instead of sustained damage for the advanced tritium cannon it's 2x per level.

There aren't enough weapons of any other damage type to compare except plasma, which is the one in contention.

If you accept the levels where there's no jump you get about 1.8x for laser, 1.7x for kinetic, 1.6x for particle, 1.5x for blast, 1.7x for ion, and 1.4x for thermo. Take the peak damage instead of sustained damage for the advanced tritium cannon and it's almost 2x.

But the top blast is a howitzer. The mark I does about 0.7 time the damage of the moskva 33 and the mark V does about 0.4 times the damage of the tritium cannon. Multiply the mark III by 1.5 and the multiplier would be closer to 1.9x.

Assume the levels where damage doesn't increase are anomolous and laser jumps to 2.2x, kinetic to 2.3x, and particle to 2x. That would give 2.2, 2.3, 2.0, 1.9, 1.7, and 2.0x.

So average gain within a type ranges from 1.6x if everything is taken at face value to 2x if you attempt to compensate for the howitzer range penalty, use peak damage for the heat counter weapon, and throw out anomolies.

I'm inclined to throw out thermo because of a lack of ammoless examples, there being only one without something to compansate for (either range or a heat counter). I'm inclined to throw out the level 2 weapons as well since the level 2-3 jump has less benefit than the space between level 2 weapons for both damage types that appear so early. That gives 2.2x for laser, 2.3x for kinetic, 1.6x for particle, 1.9x for blast (with a howitzer correction), and 1.7x for ion. That gives an average multiplier of 1.9x. The math is easier with 2x though.

[george moromisato]

Remember that both shields and armor also increase at 1.3x per level; it helps me to be able to compare damage across damage type tiers. For example, there needs to be a relationship between a level 1 laser and a level 4 particle and a level 7 ion.

But I think we agree on the curve but are expressing it in different ways.

For example, a level 4 laser weapon is less powerful than a level 4 particle beam, even if both do the same dps--obviously, the laser will be affected by armor/shield damage type adjustment.

Even if I use a 1.3x damage curve, I have to increase damage for laser at higher level to remain competitive. Thus for a particular damage type, it *look* like the curve is closer to 2x.

I should probably apply a % increase to dps to compensate. For example:

Laser/kinetic dps:

Level 1: 16 dps
Level 2: 20 dps + 10% = 22 dps
Level 3: 28 dps + 25% = 35 dps
Level 4: 36 dps + 50% = 54 dps
Level 5: 48 dps + 100% = 96 dps
Etc...

At the next tier we would do the same thing:

Particle/blast dps:

Level 4: 36 dps
Level 5: 48 dps + 10% = 53 dps
Level 6: 64 dps + 25% = 80 dps
Level 7: 84 dps + 50% = 126 dps
Etc...

[Note: I don't know if we should pick the first level in the tier or the middle level in the tier as "standard". In the tables above I chose the first level; if we chose the middle level, then it would be the same kind of thing but different adjustments.]

This is no different than compensating for ammo-requirement or omni- or anything else. That is, instead of expressing it as part of the damage curve, I express it as an adjustment on top.

BTW: One possible solution for the dual-shot weapons is to have them be 1 level higher than single-shot, but require two device slots. Would that be too unbalancing?

[Psycholis]

BTW: One possible solution for the dual-shot weapons is to have them be 1 level higher than single-shot, but require two device slots. Would that be too unbalancing?

That would make the freighter on the verge of unplayable. The omni-turbo is the most common freighter start for me but I keep either a howitzer or slam cannon as a secondary for loot scuttling and for laser resistant foes. It applies to later omni weapons too because aside from the akan 600, no omni does station damage (that I know). Maybe I'm not diversifying into the new weapons but to make the freighter a single weapon ship makes it almost unplayable.

[Atarlost]

I think that would make them useless. And you wouldn't get much in the process. The Dual Tev would get nerfed, but the Hanzo has the exact same DPS unless you're doubling the slots for alternating weapons as well. And even if you're doubling alternating weapon slots the dual particle beam does a grand total of 0.375 dps more than the lancer.

And it's not just the dual weapons that do double the damage of a weapon of the same damage type one level down. The X-ray does exactly double the damage of the dual turbolaser. The ion blaster does exactly double the damage of the ion disruptor. The Moskva 33 does exactly double the damage of the moskva 21 and the 21 is the one that's dual.

The problem with applying a % increase on top of that table is knowing what to use. The shield and armor curves are very different. Laser/Kinetic do more than half rated damage to level 10 shields but absolutely nothing to level 10 armor.

[george moromisato]

That would make the freighter on the verge of unplayable. The omni-turbo is the most common freighter start for me but I keep either a howitzer or slam cannon as a secondary for loot scuttling and for laser resistant foes. It applies to later omni weapons too because aside from the akan 600, no omni does station damage (that I know). Maybe I'm not diversifying into the new weapons but to make the freighter a single weapon ship makes it almost unplayable.

You're probably right--I just threw it out there.

In any case, the problem only exists on four weapons. I calculated dps and adjusted for damage type tier:

dual laser: +36% overpowered
dual turbo: +39% overpowered
dual particle: +25% overpowered
dual Flenser: +41% overpowered

[The dual recoilless is already 2 levels above the single recoilless. -3% by my math]
[The dual TeV 9 is a level 7 particle weapon just when tech switches to ion. +7%]

There is an argument for making the dual laser a level 3 weapon (like the dual recoilless). [The only other level 2 weapon that is +30% overpowered is the fast-fire laser--which probably should get more power consumption.]

The turbolaser (and the dual turbo) might be overpowered, and I suggest increasing their power consumption.

The dual particle beam is only off by 25%, but it is overpowered relative to the Shuriken (-5%), the heavy slam (+2%), the mark I howitzer (-5%); It is similar to the lancer cannon (+29%) and the Moskva 33 repeater (+29%).

The dual Flenser is two levels outside its tier, so I think it's probably balanced (along with the xray laser, +56%, which is also outside its tier).

[george moromisato]

I think that would make them useless. And you wouldn't get much in the process. The Dual Tev would get nerfed, but the Hanzo has the exact same DPS unless you're doubling the slots for alternating weapons as well. And even if you're doubling alternating weapon slots the dual particle beam does a grand total of 0.375 dps more than the lancer.

Unfortunately, I screwed up the weapon definition XML. I was wondering why you kept saying that the Dual Tev and the Hanzo have the same dps, whereas my math shows the Dual Tev at 66 dps and the Hanzo at 50 dps.

Remember that the fireRate= attribute is in game seconds and there are two seconds in a tick. Thus fireRate=5 (for the Hanzo) really means one shot every 2.5 ticks. Unfortunately, (and I never said this anywhere), the game rounds to the nearest integer (not down) so you end up with a shot every 3 ticks. That puts dps for the Hanzo at 50.

Sorry about that confusion. I've added a /damage option to TransData that calculates dps (actually, it calculate damage/180 ticks, or damage/6-seconds, which is consistent with how shield regen is reported).

But it's probably a good idea to always use even numbers on fireRate (or to create a new attribute that specifies ticks).

And it's not just the dual weapons that do double the damage of a weapon of the same damage type one level down. The X-ray does exactly double the damage of the dual turbolaser. The ion blaster does exactly double the damage of the ion disruptor. The Moskva 33 does exactly double the damage of the moskva 21 and the 21 is the one that's dual.

The xray laser is 2 levels outside its tier, which justifies its damage--even so, many people think it is better than any other weapon at its level, which implies that it is overpowered.

The ion disruptor does device damage, which means it should do less overall damage.

The Moskva 33 is probably overpowered compared to others (it is a recent weapon, and hasn't had as much scrutiny as the others).

The problem with applying a % increase on top of that table is knowing what to use. The shield and armor curves are very different. Laser/Kinetic do more than half rated damage to level 10 shields but absolutely nothing to level 10 armor.

There exists a set of % adjustments on top of my damage curve that would yield your damage curve. So I don't think the problem is applying a % increase.

We're just (legitimately) arguing about what numbers to use.

For example, let's take particle damage at levels 4-8. You are arguing that dps should be:

Level 4: 36 dps
Level 5: 72 dps
Level 6: 144 dps
Level 7: 288 dps
Level 8: 576 dps

I'm arguing:

Level 4: 36 dps
Level 5: 48 dps + 10% = 53 dps
Level 6: 64 dps + 25% = 80 dps
Level 7: 84 dps + 50% = 126 dps
Level 8: 108 dps + 100% = 216 dps

Note that your curve could be expressed in my format:

Level 4: 36 dps
Level 5: 48 dps + 50% = 72 dps
Level 6: 64 dps + 125% = 144 dps
Level 7: 84 dps + 243% = 288 dps
Level 8: 108 dps + 433% = 576 dps

Thus all we're arguing about is the % bonus to apply to compensate for damage type tiering.

I'm open to argue the actual numbers. For instance, at level 8, my value of 100% might be too low, but your value of 433% is probably too high.

[Edit: My first post had hp instead of dps]

[Atarlost]

I think that would make them useless. And you wouldn't get much in the process. The Dual Tev would get nerfed, but the Hanzo has the exact same DPS unless you're doubling the slots for alternating weapons as well. And even if you're doubling alternating weapon slots the dual particle beam does a grand total of 0.375 dps more than the lancer.

Unfortunately, I screwed up the weapon definition XML. I was wondering why you kept saying that the Dual Tev and the Hanzo have the same dps, whereas my math shows the Dual Tev at 66 dps and the Hanzo at 50 dps.

Remember that the fireRate= attribute is in game seconds and there are two seconds in a tick. Thus fireRate=5 (for the Hanzo) really means one shot every 2.5 ticks. Unfortunately, (and I never said this anywhere), the game rounds to the nearest integer (not down) so you end up with a shot every 3 ticks. That puts dps for the Hanzo at 50.


Sorry about that confusion. I've added a /damage option to TransData that calculates dps (actually, it calculate damage/180 ticks, or damage/6-seconds, which is consistent with how shield regen is reported).

But it's probably a good idea to always use even numbers on fireRate (or to create a new attribute that specifies ticks).

Hanzo in RC4 has firerate=6 so it's an even 10 shots/second. 3d8 averages 13.5 for 135 DPS. The dual tev has firerate 15 which is the same as 16 when no modifiers are applied. It does 4d8 a shot or 18. Since it's dual that's 18*2/16*60=135 DPS.

And I don't think even firerates are allways good. Consider the Hanzo and the fast-fire laser. Both fire every 3 ticks. Now apply weapon optimizer roms to both. The Hanzo gets boosted to 6*0.8=4.8. But every other instance of rounding in Transcendence I've come across rounds up so it fires every 3 ticks. The fast-fire with a 20% boost from the rom gets its firerate to 4 even and so fires every 2 ticks. The same thing happens to all those firerate 15 weapons. They fire every 8 ticks, but optimized they fire every 6 ticks. If they were firerate 16 they would fire every 7 ticks when optimized. The use of multiples of 5 is allways preferred unless you want some weapon to benefit less than normal from the weapon optimizer rom. The gameplay benefit is very real and far more important than the added comfusion to modders.

And it's not just the dual weapons that do double the damage of a weapon of the same damage type one level down. The X-ray does exactly double the damage of the dual turbolaser. The ion blaster does exactly double the damage of the ion disruptor. The Moskva 33 does exactly double the damage of the moskva 21 and the 21 is the one that's dual.

The xray laser is 2 levels outside its tier, which justifies its damage--even so, many people think it is better than any other weapon at its level, which implies that it is overpowered.

The x-ray is only preferred because the Sung resist particle and Dwarg masters reflect it. If reflect didn't happen nearly 100% of the time on undamaged armor and Sung armor didn't have +50% against particle the x-ray would only be the best weapon for people who already have laser colimators.

The ion disruptor does device damage, which means it should do less overall damage.

That may be true for enemies, but it's not true for the player. The player has to deal with a damaged device until he or she can get it replaced. AI ships only have to suffer until they die and most will then be replaced unless the station that spawned them has been destroyed. It also reduces loot. For the player it may actually be a negative.

The Moskva 33 is probably overpowered compared to others (it is a recent weapon, and hasn't had as much scrutiny as the others).

The Moskva 33 is older than the Moskva 21. I think you're overestimating the value of spread weapons here in any case. Damage on a spread weapon falls off with distance and damage on everything else is constant so the effective range at which spread weapons do full rated damage is much lower than their real range, usually about 6 ls against small targets up to 20 ls against most capital ships. They are therefore only popular with people who are either fighting at very close range or people who are comparing them to an omni and finding that part of a spread weapon's damage is better than an omni's entire damage.

The problem with applying a % increase on top of that table is knowing what to use. The shield and armor curves are very different. Laser/Kinetic do more than half rated damage to level 10 shields but absolutely nothing to level 10 armor.

There exists a set of % adjustments on top of my damage curve that would yield your damage curve. So I don't think the problem is applying a % increase.

We're just (legitimately) arguing about what numbers to use.

For example, let's take particle damage at levels 4-8. You are arguing that dps should be:

Level 4: 9 dps
Level 5: 18 dps
Level 6: 36 dps
Level 7: 72 dps
Level 8: 144 dps

I'm arguing:

Level 4: 9 dps
Level 5: 12 dps + 10% = 13 dps
Level 6: 16 dps + 25% = 20 dps
Level 7: 21 dps + 50% = 32 dps
Level 8: 27 dps + 100% = 54 dps

Note that your curve could be expressed in my format:

Level 4: 9 dps
Level 5: 12 dps + 50% = 18 dps
Level 6: 16 dps + 125% = 36 dps
Level 7: 21 dps + 243% = 72 dps
Level 8: 27 dps + 433% = 144 dps

Thus all we're arguing about is the % bonus to apply to compensate for damage type tiering.

I'm open to argue the actual numbers. For instance, at level 8, my value of 100% might be too low, but your value of 433% is probably too high.

The question then is what are you going to fight with this hypothetical level 8 particle weapon? Level 8 is when Ares shipyards first start appearing. That means Deimos and Phobos. You may fight more weaker ships, but you're rarely in real danger from them unless you do something foolish. For that matter Deimos and Phobos can be generated in missions starting at level 7. Deimos has level 9 armor. Phobos has level 10. Pretending for the moment that Tharsis armors don't resist particle and aren't vulnerable to ion, against level 9 armor particle and blast do 0.233 times as much damage as ion and thermo. Against level 10 armor they do 0.2 times as much.

By your curve level 8 ion should do 30 and particle 54. Against those armors the particle would do less than half what the ion does.

By my curve ion would do 40.5 and particle would do 144. Particle is still behind.

Comparing my particle to your ion my particle is a bit ahead against the Deimos but behind against the Phobos.

It's not just the Ares shipyard though. Ranx Fortresses and their accompanying Ranx Dreadnoughts start showing at level 6 and are common at level 7. They have level 8 armor. Ares Communes start at level 6 and bring the level 8 armored Chasm and Tundra. Charon Frigates with level 4 armor can be generated by Korolov stations in level 1 systems. Less extreme but still out of depth Dwarg Fortresses start at level 6 and bring Behemoths with level 7 armor. Sung Citadels start at level 5 and bring Earth Slavers with level 6 armor.

I think you may be indexing damage types by the shield curves and shields are no longer dominant, especially for weapons that are deep for their damage type.

[george moromisato]

Hanzo in RC4 has firerate=6 so it's an even 10 shots/second. 3d8 averages 13.5 for 135 DPS. The dual tev has firerate 15 which is the same as 16 when no modifiers are applied. It does 4d8 a shot or 18. Since it's dual that's 18*2/16*60=135 DPS.

And I don't think even firerates are allways good. Consider the Hanzo and the fast-fire laser. Both fire every 3 ticks. Now apply weapon optimizer roms to both. The Hanzo gets boosted to 6*0.8=4.8. But every other instance of rounding in Transcendence I've come across rounds up so it fires every 3 ticks. The fast-fire with a 20% boost from the rom gets its firerate to 4 even and so fires every 2 ticks. The same thing happens to all those firerate 15 weapons. They fire every 8 ticks, but optimized they fire every 6 ticks. If they were firerate 16 they would fire every 7 ticks when optimized. The use of multiples of 5 is allways preferred unless you want some weapon to benefit less than normal from the weapon optimizer rom. The gameplay benefit is very real and far more important than the added comfusion to modders.

Sorry, I mis-pattern-matched. I thought you were talking about dual particles vs. neutron blaster.

And I like your point about enhancers. That is a good reason to keep odd firerate. As long as everyone is aware of how the engine does the math.

The x-ray is only preferred because the Sung resist particle and Dwarg masters reflect it...

My only point was that the weapons that you were comparing do double damage for other reasons--not because the standard damage curve is x2.

But it's not really important--what matter is what the damage curve should be, which you discuss below.

The question then is what are you going to fight with this hypothetical level 8 particle weapon? Level 8 is when Ares shipyards first start appearing. That means Deimos and Phobos. You may fight more weaker ships, but you're rarely in real danger from them unless you do something foolish. For that matter Deimos and Phobos can be generated in missions starting at level 7. Deimos has level 9 armor. Phobos has level 10. Pretending for the moment that Tharsis armors don't resist particle and aren't vulnerable to ion, against level 9 armor particle and blast do 0.233 times as much damage as ion and thermo. Against level 10 armor they do 0.2 times as much.

By your curve level 8 ion should do 30 and particle 54. Against those armors the particle would do less than half what the ion does.

By my curve ion would do 40.5 and particle would do 144. Particle is still behind.

Comparing my particle to your ion my particle is a bit ahead against the Deimos but behind against the Phobos.

It's not just the Ares shipyard though. Ranx Fortresses and their accompanying Ranx Dreadnoughts start showing at level 6 and are common at level 7. They have level 8 armor. Ares Communes start at level 6 and bring the level 8 armored Chasm and Tundra. Charon Frigates with level 4 armor can be generated by Korolov stations in level 1 systems. Less extreme but still out of depth Dwarg Fortresses start at level 6 and bring Behemoths with level 7 armor. Sung Citadels start at level 5 and bring Earth Slavers with level 6 armor.

I think you may be indexing damage types by the shield curves and shields are no longer dominant, especially for weapons that are deep for their damage type.

I wonder if it would be better to balance weapons in absolute terms rather than against the distribution of enemies. Otherwise there are too many moving parts.

It would be great if when/if the distribution of enemies changes (either by design or by the RNG) that a different set of weapons become preferable. It would suck if a change in the distribution of enemies required a rebalancing of all the weapons (which I think is what you are implying).

Regardless, we are arguing about two sets of numbers. My numbers adjust for damage type tier as follows:

Curve A
+0%
+10%
+25%
+50%
+100%

Your numbers, expressed in the same format are:

Curve B
+0%
+50%
+125%
+243%
+433%

[Which is very close to x2 multiplier per level.]

I computed the expected dps for each weapon using Curve A and Curve B. Then I removed all weapons that;
1. are omni
2. are launchers
3. require ammo
4. cause a special effect (like EMP, device damage, etc.)
5. are enemy-specific (e.g., Gaian cannon, etc.)

For all the remaining weapons, I then computed the deviation from expected dps as a percent of expected dps. Then I added the deviations for all weapons (negative deviations balancing out positive deviations) for each curve.

For Curve A, I got: +313%, meaning that on balance, weapons are a little overpowered (many low-level weapons were overpowered, while some high-level weapons were underpowered).

For Curve B, I got: -1286%, implying that your algorithm considers lots of weapons to be underpowered.

Based on this experiment, I don't think your algorithm matches the actual damage curve.

It is possible (maybe even likely) that your algorithm would lead to better balance than the existing weapon damage or my damage curve. It would be interesting to see you put those ideas into practice in your Transcendence Rebalanced mod. Perhaps it will reveal that your algorithm works in practice.

In any case, it has been very helpful for me to have you critique my methods--I believe I have arrived at a better understanding of the current weapon balance that I could have done without you.

[Atarlost]

And I like your point about enhancers. That is a good reason to keep odd firerate. As long as everyone is aware of how the engine does the math.

The most misleading thing about firerate isn't the rounding it's that a rate is something per unit time and firerate is units time per shot.

It is possible (maybe even likely) that your algorithm would lead to better balance than the existing weapon damage or my damage curve. It would be interesting to see you put those ideas into practice in your Transcendence Rebalanced mod. Perhaps it will reveal that your algorithm works in practice.

In any case, it has been very helpful for me to have you critique my methods--I believe I have arrived at a better understanding of the current weapon balance that I could have done without you.

Glad it's helpful. And I guess if I'm going to turn TR into an experiment in damage curves I don't need to wait for the weapons to be finalized for 1.0.

My point regarding ship appearance wasn't about specific mixes of enemies though. It was about the biggest enemy at most levels being armored at level+1 or level+2 and how that should effect the ratios between damage types. (level+3 as far as I see only appearing in missions) I don't think the point relies on specific enemies being present but on enemies consistantly appearing before the nominal level of their arm.

That said the enemies mix is a can of worms that may need opening. Too much stuff resists the same damage types and is vulnerable, at least reletively speaking, to the same damage types.

[edit: since this is no longer about bugs I'm starting a new thread in shipyards: http://www.neurohack.com/transcendence/ ... 4137#24137]

[Atarlost]

The Ares Plasma Cannon is still underpowered. It does 3 times the damage per shot of the EI plasma cannon, but fires a fourth as often and takes two slots. It's not really in the prermium range bracket either, though, since it doesn't outrange anything important either for you or the ares. (lower than lightning turrets and positron cannons for you, lower than the commonwealth's ubiquitous TEVs for the Ares)

At a single slot it would just be on the weak side and could take comfort in higher WMD, but at two slots it's downright weak.