We need to take a look at WMD balance across levels

[JohnBWatson]

Ease of use in various situations may be enough to justify a weapon's low or zero WMD rating. Weapons have some useful characteristics that are not all WMD-related. For example, this is what I'm typically looking for in a complete set of weapons:

1. Compartment damage at long or short range (missiles; WMD weapons; rapid-fire weapons; weapons with a particle, frag, or area effect)

2. Long-range base busting (missiles, howitzers, lancer cannon)

3. Shield against incoming missiles (autodefense turrets; weapons with a particle, frag or area effect; dual/alternating configurations; fast-firing weapons with some shot inaccuracy [don't exist?])

4. Omni or tracking capability for pesky gunships and for running away

By this standard, there isn't really any use for fixed angle weapons that don't have WMD or pseudo - WMD. I'd say this is accurate with the current system, but there should be some kind of buff to those(or nerf to their alternatives) so that they aren't the absolute last choice.

In addition to the lack of a real role for fixed dogfighting weapons that isn't filled more effectively by omni weapons, howitzers and the lancer cannon seem to be as good for dogfighting as their non - WMD counterparts.

The solution I'd advise to keep weapons from being too powerful would be to try to include a matching drawback for every strength/role a weapon has, so that we don't end up with weapons like the dual flenser, which is cheap, has massive DPS, kills compartments effectively, and is lethal in dogfights, without having a single weakness until the damageType curve finally kills it towards the end of the Ungoverned Territories.

For example:

Long ranged weapons should have low firerate or shot speed to make them less effective in dogfights.

Base busters should have high energy use or use ammunition, to make it less desirable to use them on any old target.

Omnidirectional weapons should have shorter ranges, trading easier aiming for harder dodging.

Weapons with multiple strong points should have multiple matching drawbacks, making them potentially very useful, so long as their users are skilled enough to work around their flaws. This solution also provides capital ships with a much needed advantage other than internal HP - turreted fixed angle weapons will be meaningfully superior to their omnidirectional counterparts.

[gunship256]

I'm of the opinion that all of them need WMD. The internal compartment mechanics are completely broken for weapons with no WMD. Alternately internal compartments can be removed or changed completely.

Roles 3 and 4 might not absolutely need WMD, but I suspect the freighter needs to fill roles 1 and 4 in the same weapon.

This is one of the reasons I don't play using the EI500 any more. It's slow, has poor thrust, turns slowly, and can only mount two weapons.

It IS a freighter, though. On the one hand, it's heavier than the other ships and should be physically capable of mounting more powerful weapons. On the other hand, it's a freighter and should feel vulnerable to more maneuverable ships.

Buffing the WMD on the heavier forward-firing weapons might make the freighter feel more like what it could be, a slow tank that can fight other slow tanks but is vulnerable to smaller, faster ships.

It seems to me like we're all arriving at similar conclusions. Forward-firing energy weapons and some kinetic weapons should be more effective against capital ships (WMD?), and long-range weapons (howitzers, some kinetic weapons) shouldn't be so powerful that they overshadow the roles of the other weapons.

[JohnBWatson]

This is one of the reasons I don't play using the EI500 any more. It's slow, has poor thrust, turns slowly, and can only mount two weapons.

It IS a freighter, though. On the one hand, it's heavier than the other ships and should be physically capable of mounting more powerful weapons. On the other hand, it's a freighter and should feel vulnerable to more maneuverable ships.

I strongly agree with the sentiment expressed here - if lighter ships have the same potential weapon loadout as heavier ones, there's very little reason not to use them. Sure, heavier ships have more device slots, but those aren't particularly important, and there are few to no useful armors that fall between the max armor weight of the Wolfen and the max armor weight of the EI1500. Slower and heavier ships should carry some bonus to heavier or turreted weapons to counterbalance their inability to dogfight.

It seems to me like we're all arriving at similar conclusions. Forward-firing energy weapons and some kinetic weapons should be more effective against capital ships (WMD?), and long-range weapons (howitzers, some kinetic weapons) shouldn't be so powerful that they overshadow the roles of the other weapons.

I'd say that's a good summary.

[gunship256]

Slower and heavier ships should carry some bonus to heavier or turreted weapons to counterbalance their inability to dogfight.

THAT is an interesting suggestion. The EI500 doesn't feel very different from the EI100 and EI200 in maneuverability, but the latter two ships can mount weapons omnidirectionally.

Giving the EI500 an omnidirectional weapon mount might make it feel twice as powerful as it is now and give it an advantage similar to what smaller capital ships iike the Drake already have. The Drake also has an omnidirectional missle mount, so if the EI500 doesn't have that, the Drake will still feel more powerful.

To tie this back to the topic and to repeat something I mentioned earlier: Not all the balance issues necessarily have to do with WMD. Of course, we know that already, since there's another thread addressing lots of different balance problems.

Some might be issues with lack of functionality (QAC and Lamplighter shots being shot down too easily, large spread on the laser cannon array), and some might be issues with the way ships are using those weapons. If the EI500 could mount EI's ion blasters omnidirectionally, the weapons wouldn't need much WMD to be effective.

Edit: A freighter with an omnidirectional MorningStar and a thousand Stiletto missles would be a force to be reckoned with. A Wolfen could probably still outrange and outmaneuver it, but it would be much more of a fair fight than the way things are now.

[JohnBWatson]

Giving the EI500 an omnidirectional weapon mount might make it feel twice as powerful as it is now and give it an advantage similar to what smaller capital ships iike the Drake already have. The Drake also has an omnidirectional missle mount, so if the EI500 doesn't have that, the Drake will still feel more powerful.

An omni mount on a non - capital ship would require some kind of limitation to avoid making omnidirectional weapons obsolete and being overpowered in general.

If a playable gunship comes with an omni mount, I'd recommend the following limitations:

- 1 weapon at a time. Docking should be required to switch which weapon gains omnidirectionality from the turret.
- Weight limit. Howitzers and heavy weaponry should definitely be excluded. I've made the suggestion of a weight limit for generic weapon slots before, but for omnidirectional turret slots it's an absolute must.

That said, the ability to omnidirectionally mount a single starcannon, arbalest, or similar weapon would be a fantastic mechanic for a playable ship without being unbalanced.

Edit: A freighter with an omnidirectional MorningStar and a thousand Stiletto missles would be a force to be reckoned with. A Wolfen could probably still outrange and outmaneuver it, but it would be much more of a fair fight than the way things are now.

Exactly what I'm thinking.

---

[gunship256]

An omni mount on a non - capital ship would require some kind of limitation to avoid making omnidirectional weapons obsolete and being overpowered in general.

If a playable gunship comes with an omni mount, I'd recommend the following limitations:

- 1 weapon at a time. Docking should be required to switch which weapon gains omnidirectionality from the turret.
- Weight limit. Howitzers and heavy weaponry should definitely be excluded. I've made the suggestion of a weight limit for generic weapon slots before, but for omnidirectional turret slots it's an absolute must.

That said, the ability to omnidirectionally mount a single starcannon, arbalest, or similar weapon would be a fantastic mechanic for a playable ship without being unbalanced.

---

PM already found a solution to this when he made PSD 6. The EI100/M missile ship could mount EI weapons and non-military launchers omnidirectionally, but non-EI weapons and military launchers behaved like normal weapons. This worked really well to limit the ship's capabilities, since most EI weapons don't have either WMD or howitzer range, without making the ship a really weak freighter.

Making the already decent level 1-3 EI lasers omnidirectional also made the EI100/M competitive with the Wolfen and Sapphire early in the game, before the Titan drive is available. It was my favorite ship to fly when I first got PSD.

If there's an objection to being limited to EI weapons, a possible modification could be to make any weapons below a pre-determined WMD rating omnidirectional.

[JohnBWatson]

Locking the omni - bonus to EI would also work, and has the advantage of working through an already implemented set of mechanics, but I'm not sure about going without a hard weight limit, given how powerful an omnidirectional Lancer, dual weapon, or heavy ion blaster would be.

Come to think of it, having one standard weapon slot and one omnidirectional turret slot limited to light EI weapons would be perfectly balanced, in my opinion. A cut above any other playership in terms of anti - gunship firepower, and capable enough against capital ships with a good launcher and a stock of missiles(which goes well with its cargo space and ability to make use of trade routes).

[gunship256]

Locking the omni - bonus to EI would also work, and has the advantage of working through an already implemented set of mechanics, but I'm not sure about going without a hard weight limit, given how powerful an omnidirectional Lancer, dual weapon, or heavy ion blaster would be.

Come to think of it, having one standard weapon slot and one omnidirectional turret slot limited to light EI weapons would be perfectly balanced, in my opinion. A cut above any other playership in terms of anti - gunship firepower, and capable enough against capital ships with a good launcher and a stock of missiles(which goes well with its cargo space and ability to make use of trade routes).

Yes - I forgot to mention that PM lowered the EI100's cargo space in exchange for making some weapons omnidirectional. So there was a tradeoff. If the EI500 started with 50 tons of cargo space instead of 200, expandable to only 150 with a cargo hold, that might be more of a fair tradeoff for having all EI weapons and all non-military launchers omnidirectional.

Another possible tradeoff would be to keep the cargo space as it is, since a lot of people like mining and trading, and lower the number of device slots instead.

Either way, PM's solution provided a use for those EI weapons - as you mentioned earlier, as anti-gunship weapons instead of anti-station weapons.

[Kourtious]

About Turrets, couldn't the possibility of players owning a turret module be spectacular? For example, Ringer turrets for Ringer weapons and Ares turrets for Ares weapons. However, turrets have drawbacks, that is turrets add more weight to the armor/weapon. The turret's and the weapon's weight are combined, then Weight reducing traits on Armor and Modules are subtracted if they exist. These issues force the players to make critical decisions, such as omnidirectional firepower vs heavy armor or Jupiter's Ares turret that uses two device slots for their capital gun vs Multi-purpose Bushido-Earth Industry Turrets. In such a case, I'll take the Corporate Turret for an enhanced Hanzo Blaster/Katana. This allows certain trash weapons like the omnidirectional ion cannon to be removed. In general, a buyable turret with LIMITATIONS would solve lots of issues and give room for weapons balance.

[gunship256]

About Turrets, couldn't the possibility of players owning a turret module be spectacular? For example, Ringer turrets for Ringer weapons and Ares turrets for Ares weapons. However, turrets have drawbacks, that is turrets add more weight to the armor/weapon. The turret's and the weapon's weight are combined, then Weight reducing traits on Armor and Modules are subtracted if they exist. These issues force the players to make critical decisions, such as omnidirectional firepower vs heavy armor or Jupiter's Ares turret that uses two device slots for their capital gun vs Multi-purpose Bushido-Earth Industry Turrets. In such a case, I'll take the Corporate Turret for an enhanced Hanzo Blaster/Katana. This allows certain trash weapons like the omnidirectional ion cannon to be removed. In general, a buyable turret with LIMITATIONS would solve lots of issues and give room for weapons balance.

I have a mostly finished turret mod that you can look at if you want. Send me a PM and I'll get you a copy.

Yes, in general, I think a way to enhance the otherwise weak particle and ion weapons would be a good reason to use them if they're not given WMD. A turret device that only works with particle weapons and another that only works with ion weapons would be an example.

[Atarlost]

There are people who prefer to play the EI500. I can't imagine how or why, but they exist. Or at least they existed before the internal structure debacle.

The EI500 accumulates wealth more easily than any other ship. There are, or at least used to be, a number of very good armors only it could mount. They may have been left behind in power creep. The EI500 can mount more devices than any other ship and there are more nonweapon devices than there used to be and several stack. There are quite a few weapons for which two enhancers can be used. In CC there are some for which three enhancers apply. The EI500 can be expected to have less variety of weapons but hit harder and have better defenses than a Wolfen.

SotP needs more devices, but the EI500 in CC is a good picture of how it should play. It can mount an endgame loadout of a lithium booster, thermo shell autofac, longreach, hyperion, Taikon-200, pteracnium megadrive, patcher arm, and omni thermo cannon, and ferian plasma cannon. A midgame loadout might use a kinetic enhancer, rasiermesser enhancer, smartcannon, ICX, dual flenser, patcher arm, 150NX, tritium booster, and QCPU and take advantage of Dwarg Holochroal armor that other ships can't mount. The freighter's start is bad because there are few low level devices.

The answer isn't giving the EI500 an omni slot. The answer is increasing the variety of good high and especially low level non-weapon devices. And probably not making the player identify them, or at least not the low level ones.

[AssumedPseudonym]

The answer isn't giving the EI500 an omni slot. The answer is increasing the variety of good high and especially low level non-weapon devices. And probably not making the player identify them, or at least not the low level ones.

 I have to agree. I’ve seen what a freighter whose only weapon slot is omnidirectional can do with an applicable enhancer device: It borders on obscene, even on a freighter with worse handling than the EI500. Furthmore, the fact that there are players who prefer (and are better with) the EI500 leaves me wondering if it actually needs any buffing at all. It really seems to come down to playstyle.
 …And none of this has anything to do with WMD…

[gunship256]

If we stay with that route, then I agree that the energy weapons need something that will make players want to use them. WMD would probably do it.

[Atarlost]

If we stay with that route, then I agree that the energy weapons need something that will make players want to use them. WMD would probably do it.

The way internal structure works currently EVERY weapon needs WMD unless it puts out at least two shots every 3 ticks on average, doesn't damage armor at all anyways (like EMP), has a particle type (since the particles bug supersedes WMD effects), or has some special effect of power similar to WMD (disintegration, radiation, or maybe device disruption).

Not having WMD is not okay unless internal structure is going to stop caring about WMD.

[JohnBWatson]

There are people who prefer to play the EI500. I can't imagine how or why, but they exist. Or at least they existed before the internal structure debacle.

The EI500 accumulates wealth more easily than any other ship. There are, or at least used to be, a number of very good armors only it could mount. They may have been left behind in power creep.

I'd agree there. Back when blast plate wasn't as easy to come by early on, the titanium barricades weren't as weak. The old anti - disintegration armor was also useful for people who were paranoid going in to the final fight.

The EI500 can mount more devices than any other ship and there are more nonweapon devices than there used to be and several stack. There are quite a few weapons for which two enhancers can be used.

Enhancers take a ton of power, and don't typically make up for the ship's turn speed. Lowering the poweruse of enhancement devices when their weapon is not being fired would probably reduce this issue somewhat.

The EI500 can be expected to have less variety of weapons but hit harder and have better defenses than a Wolfen.

I think this would be a good goal for balancing the EI500, but to reach it we'd need to make some changes so that weight requirements matter. Making particularly desirable armors, like the Iocrym plating for late game and Blast Plate for early game, heavy enough to exclude lighter ships could resolve this.

SotP needs more devices, but the EI500 in CC is a good picture of how it should play. It can mount an endgame loadout of a lithium booster, thermo shell autofac, longreach, hyperion, Taikon-200, pteracnium megadrive, patcher arm, and omni thermo cannon, and ferian plasma cannon. A midgame loadout might use a kinetic enhancer, rasiermesser enhancer, smartcannon, ICX, dual flenser, patcher arm, 150NX, tritium booster, and QCPU and take advantage of Dwarg Holochroal armor that other ships can't mount. The freighter's start is bad because there are few low level devices.

All respectable strategies, though I'd point out that the QCPU isn't really that useful, especially in midgame where cubes are somewhat rare. Even when cubes are common, they don't do anything particularly desirable. More importantly, the poweruse of those setups is very high.

I'd also point out that adding an additional tradeoff makes a ship more resilient against becoming obsolete. The more differences between the ship classes, the harder it is for a single instance of power creep, lack of a certain kind of item, or changed mechanic to kill their entire playstyle.

Also, the Sapphire can use the more useful devices there while maintaining a smaller target and better maneuverability. The EI500's main advantage over the Sapphire at present is its larger cargo space, which is almost completely negated by the addition of a cargo hold, which is necessary to exploit the Black Market, one of the most valuable economic resources in the game.

The answer isn't giving the EI500 an omni slot. The answer is increasing the variety of good high and especially low level non-weapon devices. And probably not making the player identify them, or at least not the low level ones.

While I appreciate subtle advantages, things like an omnidirectional slot serve to differentiate the different ships in additional ways, adding more replay value and making the game easier to get into for new players who don't really know how to exploit the numerical strengths and weaknesses from the get go. In addition, a ship with a specialized omni slot would work well as a first ship for new players.

---

Not having WMD is not okay unless internal structure is going to stop caring about WMD.

Or, alternatively, stops being about half of the damage a player needs to do over the course of a game. I'm okay with capital ships needing a few hits from a dedicated heavy weapon to finish off. That makes sense. The issue is needing to hammer away at them for twice the time it took to take down their armor, which is supposed to be their primary means of defense.

---

Also, a quick suggestion to make internals more intuitive however they're redone: there should be some sort of distinction on the health bar between internals and armor. Just making the internal health a bit darker would make the system a lot easier for people who haven't read about it here(who I believe will always be the majority of players) to understand. The targeting interface should also separate armor from internals.