Author Topic: Mesons  (Read 5365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Erik Luken

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5241
  • Thanked: 132 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: Mesons
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2018, 01:02:59 PM »
A combination of 3, 6, and 7.
 

Offline Conscript Gary

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 257
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2018, 02:46:39 PM »
Even if it didn't quite work that way, I like the thought of meson weapons as the opposite side of the coin to HPMs.

Microwaves bypass armor, and do extra damage to shields.
Mesons could potentially bypass shields and do extra damage to armor scaling with the focal size, maybe with some new damage profile. Once through armor though they would still only have their 1 point of damage- maybe with a bonus against armored components/increased HTK ones, but that might get a bit strange.

I also like the idea Darkminion had earlier where rather than ignoring armor, the armor is included on the table of things a meson blast can hit- maybe every column instead of every square, so that size is an inherent defense against the RNG rather than having to get too crazy with weighted odds.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 482
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2018, 03:16:45 PM »
Microwaves aren't anti-shield weapons. They do 1 damage compared to 3 for a normal laser, but do triple damage to shields. That just means they hit shields like a normal weapon.

Imagine if mesons were changed to penetrate shields but do 3 damage to armor instead of penetrating. That would make them anti-shield weapons, not anti-armor.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 03:18:35 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Lucifer, the Morning Star

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • L
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2018, 03:18:02 PM »
Alright, I don't frequent the forums much, but I do moderate the Aurora discord.  Frankly, I don't really see why mesons need an overhaul.  They aren't the superweapon some people are making them out to be.  Mesons are only really effective on small ships like fighters, meaning that the beam failure rate already hits them hard.  Not letting them go through shields means that they are entirely worse than microwaves, as there is no difference between a crippled ship and a dead ship.  (As a side note, microwaves aren't a good "anti shield" weapon as cost for damage they are just as effective as lasers at killing shields. ) Any change to the Meson design invalidates them entirely, and I don't want to seem them removed as I run fighters nearly every game.  Besides, mesons already have a counter.  It's called point defence.  If big capital ships being killed too quickly by mesons is an issue, just stick some AMMs or AFMs on your ship.  You csnt complain about a design of you don't even try to stop it.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 325
  • Thanked: 77 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2018, 03:22:04 PM »
I personally would not remove turreting. Rail guns and particle beams are already unturretable, having some options is nice.

One alternative option would be having them being blocked by shields, but penetrating armor instead. That would give a reason to field shields even on small ships.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 139 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2018, 03:23:14 PM »
Spoilers and Ruins please.
 

Offline somebody1212

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2018, 03:24:14 PM »
(same position as Lucifer, moderate the Discord and lurk on here but don't really post much)

I agree with Lucifer.  C# is already nerfing beam weapons in general (and fast-firing beam weapons in particular) with the failure rate, and it's buffing shields.  Hard nerfs to the main counter to shields at the same time run the risk of shields dominating the battlefield.

On the Discord, we've already seen shield-heavy designs come to the forefront of the tournaments.

Nerfing mesons when there's already so many changes that will affect the meson-shield balance in C# is perhaps somewhat hasty.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discord.gg/TXK6qcP
 

Offline MajGenRelativity

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 12
Re: Mesons
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2018, 03:32:21 PM »
My personal opinion would be either 4 or 5.   Having them do only partial armor penetration makes them more like particle lances than anything else.   Increasing the cost or letting shields block them could be a good balance.   I'd prefer 4 over 5, as I'm not sure how the shield meta will change with C#

EDIT: I strongly lean towards 4 over 5.  The current meta is shield focused unless you have the right designs, and I don't want to tilt it anymore in that direction.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 03:39:12 PM by MajGenRelativity »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7809
  • Thanked: 4002 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Mesons
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2018, 04:23:25 PM »
C# is already nerfing beam weapons in general (and fast-firing beam weapons in particular) with the failure rate, and it's buffing shields. 

The failure rate is only really an issue for constant ground bombardment. Close energy engagements don't usually last long enough for the 1 in 50 shots failure (which is instantly repaired by MSP) to be an issue. Also, missiles have the same failure rate, plus they can run out of ammunition. If anything, it is more of a problem for AMM launchers. Also, large shields may be stronger but shields have doubled in cost and their HTK has come down. Shields smaller than 10 HS are weaker than VB6.

The only situation I can remember in any of my campaigns where constant energy fire was a concern was spending an hour to bring down the shields of a swarm mothership with a relatively weak energy-armed force firing 20cm lasers every 20 seconds. That would have resulted in about 3.5 failures, or about 180 MSP per laser, so the ship may have run out before the hour was up. Even so, that was a rare marginal situation and an extra ship would have solved the problem. Plus, that situation won't happen in C# because the Swarm are changing.

It could be an issue for energy-armed fighters without MSP, but an average of 50 shots is probably fine and MSP could be added to the fighter design if required. Plus fighters are easier to repair with a carrier nearby, even if they do fail.

In general, C# has reduced the capabilities of missiles much more than energy weapons.

 

Offline Zincat

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Z
  • Posts: 316
  • Thanked: 37 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2018, 04:33:02 PM »
To the discord people: I think most people here are not really advocating against shield bypassing. In fact, just about everyone said they should bypass shields. It's the complete bypass of shields AND armor that is a problem.

Put another way. A single meson hit from a single fighter can potentially destroy a one million tons ship. THAT is what most people here do not like at all. That is why it's unbalanced.

As Steve said, Aurora c# is really geared towards much larger ships, compared to vb6 aurora. That a single hit from a fighter can potentially destroy a huge capital ship is not really advisable, nor realistic in any way.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 04:54:25 PM by Zincat »
 
The following users thanked this post: El Pip

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2018, 04:45:04 PM »
Well, the failure rate makes extreme range fire somewhat costly (low damage for some weapons, low chance to hit). Against heavy shielding or cheap bulky targets (may require playing around maintenance in C#) this could become economically unfeasible.

In general, the failure rate makes cost-effectiveness of weapons much more important and will encourage deliberately low-tech weapons if they are "good enough" for the requirement. Not sure whether that's a problem or a good thing that increases depth.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7809
  • Thanked: 4002 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Mesons
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2018, 05:07:08 PM »
Well, the failure rate makes extreme range fire somewhat costly (low damage for some weapons, low chance to hit). Against heavy shielding or cheap bulky targets (may require playing around maintenance in C#) this could become economically unfeasible.

In general, the failure rate makes cost-effectiveness of weapons much more important and will encourage deliberately low-tech weapons if they are "good enough" for the requirement. Not sure whether that's a problem or a good thing that increases depth.

The 2% failure rate is an estimate as well. I may adjust that once I see some campaign combat in the test games (soon I hope!).
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • I
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2018, 05:09:56 PM »
I agree with both Lucifer and Sombody1212, and I do not think nerfing the meson is needed.

In its current state, the only meaningful way of using mesons, is mounting them on fighters and have a swarm of them.  This is largely due to mesons only do 1 point of damage regardless of their size and tech.  With such a meson fighter swarm, they can only start to deal damage after wading through AMM/AFM fire, possible interceptors and area PD/anti fighter beam weapons.  As Lucifier pointed out, they are easily countered if the opposing has competent anti fighter capabilities.  Without anti fighter defense, a swarm of microwave fighters or missile fighters can also wreck havoc on such a fleet.

From a broad point of view, since mesons are almost exclusively used on fighters to be effective, some changes in C# are already indirectly nerfing them.  For example, the small engines generally use more fuel in C#; the nerfing in sensor range with large resolutions will make small resolution sensors more efficient thus fighters may lose their 'stealthness'; the failure rate on weapons also penalizes fighters more than other ship types; the missile engine/E-war change makes smaller missiles less capable against ECM equipped ships; and the missile launch detection change makes torpedoes largely obsolete.  With all these changes, I don't think more nerf on meson will make fighters in a better situation.
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • I
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Mesons
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2018, 05:22:35 PM »
Quote from: Zincat link=topic=10229. msg111575#msg111575 date=1545949982
To the discord people: I think most people here are not really advocating against shield bypassing.  In fact, just about everyone said they should bypass shields.  It's the complete bypass of shields AND armor that is a problem.

Put another way.  A single meson hit from a single fighter can potentially destroy a one million tons ship.  THAT is what most people here do not like at all.  That is why it's unbalanced. 

As Steve said, Aurora c# is really geared towards much larger ships, compared to vb6 aurora.  That a single hit from a fighter can potentially destroy a huge capital ship is not really advisable, nor realistic in any way.

If a one million ton capital ship manages to let a meson fighter get close enough to fire the meson, then it deserve the chance to be destroyed.  It is either designed not to handle such situation, or it is poorly escorted.  On top of that, the possibility you are talking about is really small.

And I don't understand all the 'unbalanced' argument in Aurora.  There is no PvP in the game, and it is not like everyone is using mesons against the AI.  On the other hand, it actually gives a cheap and somewhat effective way of fighting back against more tech advanced opponents.  In a PvE game, I don't see it is an issue.  Otherwise, meeting invaders at ion/MPD tech level is a death sentence.

Also, I think we should leave 'reality' out of the equation in an unverse where Newton laws do not hold.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7809
  • Thanked: 4002 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Mesons
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2018, 05:24:39 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.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55