More weapon ranges

[george moromisato]

Here is a proposed list of weapon ranges that I think we should alter. I would love to hear, on balance grounds, whether or not these changes make sense. [Also, feel free to suggest other weapons]

Heavy recoilless cannon
old range: 36
new range: 48
reason: consistency with recoilless cannon (currently at 48 ls)

MAG launcher
old range: various, but mostly 24
new range: 48
reason: too weak otherwise; still not as good as missile launcher (which is OK)

AK505 Ballista cannon
old range: 54
new range: 90
reason: closer to howitzer range

particle beams (incl. dual, omni, etc.)
old range: 80
new range: 60
reason: consistency with lasers

slam cannons (incl. heavy)
old range: 80
new range: 90
reason: intermediate to howitzer

Flensers
old range: 108
new range: 48
reasons: balance; consistency with kinetic weapons

TeV blasters (incl. dual, omni)
old range: 80
new range: 60
reason: consistency with beam weapons

Nandao bolt cannon
old range: 144
new range: 120
reason: consistency with other long range weapons

tritium and advanced tritium cannons
old range: 36
new range: 48
reason: consistency; balance

Hanzo blaster
old range: 80
new range: 60
reason: consistency

thermo cannon (incl. omni)
old range: 108
new range: 120
reason: consistent with ammo weapons

Katana star cannon
old range: 120
new range: 60
reason: balance, consistency

Qianlong archcannon
old range: 48
new range: 90
reason: balance

omni ion blaster
old range: 80
new range: 60
reason: consistency with other ion blasters

positron lancer
old range: 63
new range: ??? other lancers have a range of 120, but the positron lancer is already too powerful.

Lamplighter prototype
old range: 72
new range: 48
reason: prototype should be weaker than finished weapon (currently, Lamplighter is 60).

Quantumsphere disintegrator
old range: 108
new range: 120
reason: consistency with ammo weapons

All other ranges should stay as they are.

[BTW, you can use the latest TransData tool to output ranges. Use the /range option. Make sure you have version 1.8]

[Blitz]

positron lancer
old range: 63
new range: ??? other lancers have a range of 120, but the positron lancer is already too powerful.

Yup, it's waay too powerful. Set the range to 120 but decrease the damage instead to acceptable levels.

[Aury]

You should use the opportunity to set the longreach to use a weapon that doesn't have WMD

[Alex_]

Reducing the range of particle beam weapons is the only thing that doesn't seem right. It gives even less incentive to upgrade to particle weapons when you're past st K's. Range is one of the big advantages of the omni particle over the omni turbo.

[Atarlost]

I'm going to strongly disagree with the flenser and Katana changes.

Both are lower damage than they should be by extrapolation.

Compare the dual flenser to the x-ray laser cannon. They're the same level. The configurations and firerates are identical. The Dual Flenser doe 18 average damage perr shot. The X-ray does 20. The flenser is already inferior because the x-ray has access to a +75% enhancer device and the Flenser only to a +50%.

Also compare the single flenser to the ballista. The flenser does 18 damage every 16 ticks. The ballista does 63 damage every 46 ticks. That's 67.5 dps for the flenser 82.2 dps for the ballista. The Flensers have the damage they have because they're paying a range penalty compared to other similar weapons. Reducing them to 48 range is catastrophic. Doing so while increasing the ballista to 90 is beyond catastrophic.

The Katana pays a huge power consumption cost relative to the ares lightning cannon which has nearly the same damage. Again it's already paying for that extra range. But it also fills a needed niche. It's the only commonwealth weapon that doesn't suck, and most of the reason for that is the range. It's also the only plausable weapon that has the potential to make the Destroy Antarctica mission not a cakewalk if given to the Antarctica.

I'm also thinking the particle weapons don't need the nerf, at least not the TEVs. They need that range to be remotely competative. Kobol with 60 ls range would be far less threatening, as would rogue fleet. Centurions with 60 ls range would be even more worthless as wingmen.

Some of the realy low ranges could do with boosting, but for the most part it's the range gaps that make some weapons interesting.



What I would do is boost all the 36 to 48, raise anything below 36 to 36 (see especially the Urak mass drivers) and leave most of the longer ranged stuff alone.

I'd leave most of the longer stuff alone. Katana I might drop to 80 or 90, but not lower since to do so would be to make it boring.

But then I don't think consistancy is something to really strive for in this respect. Different weapons will have different ranges and that's okay as long as their damage output is penalized for unusually long range. Right now I think it usually is, though a few things have unusually short range without the extra damage to match, like the aforementioned Urak mass drivers.

[Prophet]

Ballista:
The problem isn't the range, it's the interaction. It's suicide to try and use it at close range because even a laser cannon will destroy the shot before it even gets close.

Particle beams
I wouldn't mind the nerf, by the time you are ready to buy one you should have a secondary weapon which can fill the long range roll if desired.

Flensers
I would rather they NOT be nerfed, as they are a welcome exception to the kinetics. A range of 60 would be the min I would use but I am biased because they are one of my favorite early/mid game weapons and would prefer a range of 80.

TeVs
These are to party beams, as flensers are to reccoiless cannons. I agree with Atarlost that these should stay as is.

Katana
I also feel this falls into the same category as the flenser and TeVs. The game already relies on the Katana so much that any change could have unintended side-effects.

I agree with all other proposed changes as described by George above.

[Aury]

The ballista projectile needs HP. That should fix it getting killed by stray shots.

[Atarlost]

Also, all the energy weapons that use the missile shot type for graphical reasons need HPs. In particular the Ares Archcannon. It should not be stopped by an ICX. The Absolution Cannon may also fall into this category.

[Aury]

The absolution cannon is the white elephant of weapons; a novelty, but nothing more.

I say the absolution cannon gets rebalanced into usefulness for 1.0

So yes, I think it could do with at least a bit more HP.

[Prophet]

I had an idea for the penitent order weapons, can the damage inflicted be modified by the player's Domina level?

Penitents are aligned with Oracus, the player with Domina. This may seem extremely D&D-ish but these two are diametrically opposed. Keep the absolution cannon at 1d8 (maybe less) and simply multiply the damage by the player's Domina level. Never took up the domina quest, no prob, but If you actively donate to domina and have max level (10) that's 1d8x10 dark acid, making them VERY nasty.

Anyways, just a thought...

[digdug]

Penitents are aligned with Oracus, the player with Domina. This may seem extremely D&D-ish but these two are diametrically opposed. Keep the absolution cannon at 1d8 (maybe less) and simply multiply the damage by the player's Domina level. Never took up the domina quest, no prob, but If you actively donate to domina and have max level (10) that's 1d8x10 dark acid, making them VERY nasty.

Code: Select all

awesome ! i like that :D

I also would like to go against the Katana star cannon range nerfing: the reason is that the Katana is a special weapon, that is a bit overpowered and has been overpowered from many versions. Maybe change it to give it more importance gamewise, but nerfing it now seems a bit unreasonable.

Also, I believe that the weapons shouldn't all be perfectly balanced, there should be some weapons a bit more powerful or useful and others less. This can obviously depend or change on the situation but having a few not balanced weapons is good. (think about a roleplaying game: you can find a few bronze swords in loot that you will never use because they are less good than steel, but it can happen to find a mithril sword, something you want to treasure)

[george moromisato]

Thanks for feedback, everyone. It sounds like there is consensus not to nerf a lot of the weapons. How about this counter proposal (items in red are different from the previous proposal).

Heavy recoilless cannon
old range: 36
new range: 48
reason: consistency with recoilless cannon (currently at 48 ls)

MAG launcher
old range: various, but mostly 24
new range: 48
reason: too weak otherwise; still not as good as missile launcher (which is OK)

AK505 Ballista cannon
old range: 54
new range: 60
reason: consistency

particle beams (incl. dual, omni, etc.)
old range: 80
new range: no change

slam cannons (incl. heavy)
old range: 80
new range: no change

Flensers
old range: 108
new range: 90
reasons: slight nerf for consistency

TeV blasters (incl. dual, omni)
old range: 80
new range: no change

Nandao bolt cannon
old range: 144
new range: 120
reason: consistency with other long range weapons

tritium and advanced tritium cannons
old range: 36
new range: 48
reason: consistency; balance

Hanzo blaster
old range: 80
new range: 60
reason: consistency

thermo cannon (incl. omni)
old range: 108
new range: 120
reason: consistent with ammo weapons

Katana star cannon
old range: 120
new range: no change

Qianlong archcannon
old range: 48
new range: 90
reason: balance

omni ion blaster
old range: 80
new range: 60
reason: consistency with other ion blasters

positron lancer
old range: 63
new range: 60

Lamplighter prototype
old range: 72
new range: 48
reason: prototype should be weaker than finished weapon (currently, Lamplighter is 60).

Edit: No change to quantumsphere disintegrator. Its range is non-linear because it accelerates over its lifetime, thus it already has a range > 120 ls.

[Aury]

Penitents are aligned with Oracus, the player with Domina. This may seem extremely D&D-ish but these two are diametrically opposed. Keep the absolution cannon at 1d8 (maybe less) and simply multiply the damage by the player's Domina level. Never took up the domina quest, no prob, but If you actively donate to domina and have max level (10) that's 1d8x10 dark acid, making them VERY nasty.

Code: Select all

awesome ! i like that :D

That is a brilliant idea! (Not sure exactly what the balance would be, but it sounds like something to give a shot with! With a little tweaking, I bet it could be balanced...)

[Aury]

@ george: how do you plan on changing the ranges? speed, lifetime, or combination of the two?

[Atarlost]

Okay. I have a couple concerns.

The Urak mass drivers in particular have terribly short range. You haven't addressed them specifically.

Also, the Hanzo has a problem. It draws a lot more power than the dual TEV for the same damage (135 dps for both), but in smaller chunks that suffer more to roundoff error and now less range. It also, with a firerate of 6 doesn't benefit from weapon optimization roms. It's falling further and further into the "noncompetative" category, first with the RC1 boost to TEV damage and now with the range nerf. I'm not against the range nerf, but it needs either to draw less power or do more damage or have some other advantage that's worth the highest power consumption of any level 7 weapon.

About half of the plasma weapons also have problems as I pointed out in another thread, and fixing some of them may involve range tweaks.