Author Topic: Mesons  (Read 16837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lucifer, the Morning Star

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • L
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2018, 06:15:44 PM »
If mesons are the best and only viable option for beam fighters, then doesn't that suggest they are overpowered? I mean you are talking about throwing away potentially dozens of fighters on the chance that you get to land one or two meson hits, that's a fair amount of BP and research investment trading off for a couple of successful shots don't you think? It basically turns fighters into more expensive, lower damage long range missiles that penetrate armor.

Look at it this way, in VB6 Aurora the Star Swarm uses mesons exclusively and they require purpose built fleets to deal with safely because experienced players know they can't risk any ships being in range of their weapons for even one five second interval, could we really say that if they used railguns or lasers?

All this leaves aside the power of mesons in multi-faction, same planet games, in the last multiplayer game I participated in my faction got Meson PDCs online before anyone else and the only reason we didn't take over the world was because the person running the game made us stop. At low tech levels they are pretty much the ultimate weapon.

I don't think "git gud" is an appropriate response to criticisms of the weapon in this forum either, someone mentioned that if you lose your million ton warship to a single meson fighter then they deserve to, but proponents of meson fighters literally count on this scenario, if only bad people lose to meson fighters, then how can meson fighters be good? To me the answer is meson fighters are really good and the argument is disingenuous at best.

All that said, personally I don't know how mesons would compare in C# Aurora, I kinda think that as long as they aren't an early game technology that takes over multi-faction starts they might be just fine without other changes. But I like the idea of them being a ruin or spoiler specific tech, I think there should be more reasons to salvage and explore other than incremental upgrades.
Multi faction starts aren't base start, you put yourself in that situation, so it can't be applied for balance. I didn't say that mesons are the best weapon, I said they are the best option. The solution isn't to make mesons bad, it's to make smaller weapons better. But since Steve is going for big ship meta, I don't see that happening.i haven't met anyone who has ever had trouble with the star swarm, they are pushovers at their strongest, let alone someone who had to custom build a fleet
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 06:21:38 PM by Lucifer, the Morning Star »
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2018, 06:17:40 PM »
I'm not sure why there is a view that mesons are only effective on fighters.

Any warship can mount mesons as long as (like any other beam-design) it has the speed to get close to its target or it lies in wait at a jump point. They penetrate shields and armour irrespective of the relative tech levels of the combatants.

One of the most effective places for a meson weapon is on a planet, especially during multi-race starts, as it can attack the ships of other races in orbit. Finally, the biggest issue for C# Aurora, is that massed mesons on a planetary surface would probably massacre any drop transports, regardless of how much passive defences they had.

This seems like a pretty easy to counter tactic to me. Stick warships outside meson range of the planet, then send one transport in. If mesons fire at it, retreat it (if it survives) and have the warships bombard the now revealed STO mesons. Repeat as needed.

Meson STO weapons seem pretty potent, but you'll only get one shot on the surprise reveal, and then their short range will leave them extremely vulnerable.

I think if I was using mesons on defence, I would support them with longer ranged weapons as well (especially given the 25% range boost), plus it will be a lot easier for the fortified ground-based weapons to hit the ships than the reverse, especially in rough terrain. If the attacker has enough ships and is prepared to take casualties, then it is possible to overcome the defences. In fact, I think that is probably the likely scenario for attacking colony worlds. Home world invasions, I suspect, will be extremely bloody (as they should be).

It's certainly possible they could be supported by longer range weapons, but having both mesons and longer range STO units invites defeat in detail. As soon as they start firing on the warships, the warships can fire back at them, and if it's 50% mesons and 50% long range lasers, then you're trading half your effectiveness against counter-bombardment for increased effectiveness against transports trying to land under fire. Without playtesting, I would suspect that might well be a fair trade.

Basically, it seems like light meson STO units are probably a counter to an opponent rushing you with heavily armed troop transports - but it strikes me that might be a tactic definitely worth having a possible counter, and it comes with a very large opportunity cost since those STO units are extremely vulnerable to counter-bombardment from outside their range.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2018, 06:18:49 PM »
Look at it this way, in VB6 Aurora the Star Swarm uses mesons exclusively and they require purpose built fleets to deal with safely because experienced players know they can't risk any ships being in range of their weapons for even one five second interval, could we really say that if they used railguns or lasers?

Yes, I agree. I am changing the swarm because of this issue. They represent a very specific and dangerous but one-dimensional threat. In fact, I have deliberately left them as one-dimensional so there is a way to overcome the meson armament.

For C#, they will have a different way of fighting, although their core imperatives will be similar. They should present a more multi-dimensional threat and will possess a unique weapon (coded today!), but not one as devastating as the fast meson swarm..
 

Offline Panopticon

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 883
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Mesons
« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2018, 06:21:25 PM »
Look at it this way, in VB6 Aurora the Star Swarm uses mesons exclusively and they require purpose built fleets to deal with safely because experienced players know they can't risk any ships being in range of their weapons for even one five second interval, could we really say that if they used railguns or lasers?

Yes, I agree. I am changing the swarm because of this issue. They represent a very specific and dangerous but one-dimensional threat. In fact, I have deliberately left them as one-dimensional so there is a way to overcome the meson armament.

For C#, they will have a different way of fighting, although their core imperatives will be similar. They should present a more multi-dimensional threat and will possess a unique weapon (coded today!), but not one as devastating as the fast meson swarm..

Yeah I realize they will be different, and am looking forward to how, but I was just using them as an example of how meson thinking can dominate a strategy.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2018, 06:23:13 PM »
Basically, it seems like light meson STO units are probably a counter to an opponent rushing you with heavily armed troop transports - but it strikes me that might be a tactic definitely worth having a possible counter, and it comes with a very large opportunity cost since those STO units are extremely vulnerable to counter-bombardment from outside their range.

I guess I could always hold fire on the mesons until the troop ships are too close to escape. I must remember to code that into the AI :)

It is unlikely any STO units are being taken out until they fire. I agree though that play testing is going to be vital for the many potential invasion scenarios.
 

Offline somebody1212

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • s
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #50 on: December 27, 2018, 06:23:41 PM »
We seem to be arguing about three different things at this point:

1: Mesons are too strong in the early game (Panopticon)

Mostly due to mesons not requiring any additional techs to be effective like other beam weapons do. 
Solution to this would be to either add more techs to mesons to stop them being so effective early on (which techs?), raise meson costs, or make the initial meson research more expensive. 


2: Mesons are too strong when used from planets (Steve et al)
Solution to this would be to stop mesons being usable as STO weapons. 


3: Mesons are too strong against large ships with strong defences (Steve et al)
Difficult to speculate on this given the amount of other changes that have happened in C#, but I agree with Lucifer and Iceranger that a large ship should either be capable of defending itself from fighters, or be escorted by something that is capable of defending it from fighters. 


These three issues are largely independent of each other, and conflating them doesn't help anything. 

EDIT: Also, seems to be interesting that the forum regulars (who mostly do single-player and single-player-multiple-race games) are in favour of nerfing mesons, while the Discord regulars (who regularly do player-vs-player tournaments) are against it.  Not sure if there's something fundamental about it or just a coincidence, but interesting nonetheless.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 06:27:10 PM by somebody1212 »
Aurora4x Discord: https://discord.gg/TXK6qcP
 
The following users thanked this post: Iceranger

Offline Panopticon

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 883
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Mesons
« Reply #51 on: December 27, 2018, 06:25:31 PM »
We seem to be arguing about three different things at this point:

1: Mesons are too strong in the early game (Panopticon)

Mostly due to mesons not requiring any additional techs to be effective like other beam weapons do.
Solution to this would be to either add more techs to mesons to stop them being so effective early on (which techs?), raise meson costs, or make the initial meson research more expensive.


2: Mesons are too strong when used from planets (Steve et al)
Solution to this would be to stop mesons being usable as STO weapons.


3: Mesons are too strong against large ships with strong defences (Steve et al)
Difficult to speculate on this given the amount of other changes that have happened in C#, but I agree with Lucifer and Iceranger that a large ship should either be capable of defending itself from fighters, or be escorted by something that is capable of defending it from fighters.


These three issues are largely independent of each other, and conflating them doesn't help anything.

Pretty much this, I don't disagree with the other two arguments mind, but I think later in the game we tend to have more options and flexible fleets to deal with it so it maybe isn't quite as large a problem.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2018, 06:40:31 PM »
I think that we should look at the effectiveness of Microwaves and Measons and Measons basically win in any and all scenarios more or less.

Both Mesons and Microwaves should be highly specialized weapons who is good in certain scenarios while Lasers, Railguns and Beams are the main weapons. Neither Microwaves nor Meason should replace the standard weapons.

So I think that Measons should change in some way, I avoid Measons becasue they are a bit too powerful when used to effect.
 
The following users thanked this post: Erik L

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2018, 06:44:53 PM »
We seem to be arguing about three different things at this point:

1: Mesons are too strong in the early game (Panopticon)
Mostly due to mesons not requiring any additional techs to be effective like other beam weapons do. 
Solution to this would be to either add more techs to mesons to stop them being so effective early on (which techs?), raise meson costs, or make the initial meson research more expensive. 

2: Mesons are too strong when used from planets (Steve et al)
Solution to this would be to stop mesons being usable as STO weapons. 

3: Mesons are too strong against large ships with strong defences (Steve et al)
Difficult to speculate on this given the amount of other changes that have happened in C#, but I agree with Lucifer and Iceranger that a large ship should either be capable of defending itself from fighters, or be escorted by something that is capable of defending it from fighters. 

These three issues are largely independent of each other, and conflating them doesn't help anything. 

EDIT: Also, seems to be interesting that the forum regulars (who mostly do single-player and single-player-multiple-race games) are in favour of nerfing mesons, while the Discord regulars (who regularly do player-vs-player tournaments) are against it.  Not sure if there's something fundamental about it or just a coincidence, but interesting nonetheless.

Regarding 3), we need to get away from the assumption that mesons are only useful on fighters. If one large well-protected ship with lasers fights another large well-protected ship with mesons, the mesons are likely to win if they get into range (either slightly faster or waiting at a jump point). The swarm are dangerous because they are fast and meson-armed. Mesons on planets are dangerous (2 above) if you have no option but to enter their range (you need to land on the planet or its also home to one of your populations).

If the Discord players are mainly involved in tactical battles, the reason for the Discord vs Forum difference will be campaign play. For example, anyone playing tactical battles usually thinks missiles are overpowered. In campaigns, I always find myself wanting more beam ships. In tactical battles, you can design whatever you like without constraints. In campaigns, especially early on, you are limited by shipyard space, technology, ordnance production, etc, which often means weak, non-specialised ships. Precursors and swarm present a serious threat in that situation.
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 229 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2018, 06:54:25 PM »
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=10229. msg111606#msg111606 date=1545957631
I think that we should look at the effectiveness of Microwaves and Measons and Measons basically win in any and all scenarios more or less.

Both Mesons and Microwaves should be highly specialized weapons who is good in certain scenarios while Lasers, Railguns and Beams are the main weapons.  Neither Microwaves nor Meason should replace the standard weapons.

So I think that Measons should change in some way, I avoid Measons becasue they are a bit too powerful when used to effect.

When comparing microwaves with mesons, it is more like microwaves being too bad rather than meson being too good.  As it has been mentioned in above posts, microwave is not an 'anti shield' weapon.  With the 3x multiplier, it does as much damage to shields as lasers.  I'd rather buffing microwaves rather than nerfing mesons in this comparison.

I don't get why lasers, railguns and (I assume particle) beams should be the main beam weapons.  This sounds arbitrary to me.  Rather, each weapon should have its place and purpose in the game.
 

Offline MajGenRelativity

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 12
Re: Mesons
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2018, 07:02:11 PM »
As a Discord player who also does campaign and tournament play, I've done some experimentation with mesons.   I think that mesons are often mentioned as being mounted on fighters because fighters make it easier to get through the defenses around a ship.   Because they can more easily bypass capital ship defenses, I think that makes them stronger.   In campaign mode, I don't think mesons pose an overwhelming advantage, but I think that making the starting and/or successive techs more expensive would help.   I've seen some comments on the Discord talking about raising the energy draw of meson cannons, and that could be another potential balance solution.   

For tournament play, there's too many strategies I've seen at play to strictly call mesons overpowered.   However, either increasing the cost in BP of a meson cannon, or increasing its power draw (thus indirectly increasing BP), would be suitable. 

EDIT: To clarify, I do not think mesons are "massively overpowered" or somesuch, but could do with a slight nerf.  My opinion is increasing the RP+BP costs would represent a suitable solution.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 07:04:40 PM by MajGenRelativity »
 

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2018, 07:12:05 PM »
Hey, another Discord regular here. I feel that we should define what a Meson Cannon, in the context of game balance is. A Meson Cannon is an option that allows you to ignore or at least diminish an enemies static defensive capabilities, in this case armor and shields, while dealing little damage beyond that effect. It needs to be less effective at long ranges then most other beam weapons. It is uniquely specialized at destroying large ships, no matter how much space is dedicated to defenses

A redesign of the Meson would, I think, begin in the first point. Instead of always ignoring the enemy, it should instead have conditions that need to be met for the effect to apply. The previous suggestion of armor of a certain thickness blocking it is good, but that takes away its role of killing heavily defended ships and instead shifts it to an anti-shield weapon (something which the Microwave already takes up, partially, although I think some reworking should be considered there too). Perhaps a system where "Radiation" or "McGuffin Juice" or whatever you want to call it builds up around a ship, decided entirely by its size and not shield/armor, which will allow mesons to then bypass these defenses freely once it exists in large enough quantities. Larger mesons would create more radiation but not deal more damage, as one seems more then enough. This would make the choice of Meson size an interesting choice, as the raw DPS of more cannons would be weighed against the amount of radiation needed for that DPS to be made a reality.

Alternatively you could have a percentage chance for penetration similar to hit chance that depends on range, otherwise it just hits the armor.

That's my two cents anyway



 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2018, 07:23:04 PM »
2) Restrict to specific types of spoiler (currently Star Swarm but they are probably going to use something else)
3) Make Ruins-only tech

My vote goes for either of these two options ( potentially also in combination with the making them more expensive part of 4 ).
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 07:31:15 PM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #58 on: December 27, 2018, 07:24:17 PM »
Hey, another Discord regular here. I feel that we should define what a Meson Cannon, in the context of game balance is. A Meson Cannon is an option that allows you to ignore or at least diminish an enemies static defensive capabilities, in this case armor and shields, while dealing little damage beyond that effect. It needs to be less effective at long ranges then most other beam weapons. It is uniquely specialized at destroying large ships, no matter how much space is dedicated to defenses

A redesign of the Meson would, I think, begin in the first point. Instead of always ignoring the enemy, it should instead have conditions that need to be met for the effect to apply. The previous suggestion of armor of a certain thickness blocking it is good, but that takes away its role of killing heavily defended ships and instead shifts it to an anti-shield weapon (something which the Microwave already takes up, partially, although I think some reworking should be considered there too). Perhaps a system where "Radiation" or "McGuffin Juice" or whatever you want to call it builds up around a ship, decided entirely by its size and not shield/armor, which will allow mesons to then bypass these defenses freely once it exists in large enough quantities. Larger mesons would create more radiation but not deal more damage, as one seems more then enough. This would make the choice of Meson size an interesting choice, as the raw DPS of more cannons would be weighed against the amount of radiation needed for that DPS to be made a reality.

Alternatively you could have a percentage chance for penetration similar to hit chance that depends on range, otherwise it just hits the armor.

That's my two cents anyway

Microwaves are NOT an Anti-Shield weapon... shields are a pretty good defense against Microwaves. Measons are pretty much better than Microwaves on all accounts, more or less.

I think that Meason should be balanced to be around as effective a weapons as Microwaves which are quite good in the situation where the opponent have no shields.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #59 on: December 27, 2018, 07:36:11 PM »
Microwaves are not intended as an anti-shield weapon. They only have one point of damage (like mesons) and pass through armour, so their 3 damage vs shields is to avoid them being completely negated by shields. They are actually weaker against shields than lasers, railguns or particle beams.

 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus, somebody1212