Author Topic: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 63340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11657
  • Thanked: 20375 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #75 on: September 29, 2022, 06:54:07 PM »
I'm not sure how I feel about this change, as I personally thought PBs were a fairly attractive weapon choice. They definitely lack DPI but their strength has always been to put out a lot of damage at long range when every other weapon type is doing 1 damage per hit. I'm curious to hear more about the change from Steve and also to hear about what this means for Particle Lances.

Also: Steve - is this change an EXE change, or accomplished by changing the DB tech values? I hope it is the latter so that the PB sizes would remain open for adjustments to the player's taste.

Its a very simple DB change.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer, nuclearslurpee

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2975
  • Thanked: 2237 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #76 on: September 30, 2022, 03:21:18 PM »
Its a very simple DB change.

Thanks Steve! Good to know, though the justification makes good sense to me anyways now.
 

Offline Coleslaw

  • I got the Versacis on, stop playin'!
  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #77 on: October 11, 2022, 08:47:11 AM »
I am salivating over these quality of life changes.
 

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1332
  • Thanked: 591 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: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2023, 09:52:45 PM »
I love the latest addition of Combat Comparison. If I may, I don't particularly like the column names Ships Dest and I know it's due to a limit in the number of characters.

Wouldn't be better to rename it Kills?

Just a thought...
 
The following users thanked this post: StarshipCactus

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2975
  • Thanked: 2237 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2023, 10:11:46 PM »
I love the latest addition of Combat Comparison. If I may, I don't particularly like the column names Ships Dest and I know it's due to a limit in the number of characters.

Wouldn't be better to rename it Kills?

Just a thought...

"Ship Kills" is the same number of characters, and should render a bit narrower in Aurora's font.
 
The following users thanked this post: StarshipCactus

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1332
  • Thanked: 591 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: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2023, 01:57:11 AM »
I love the latest addition of Combat Comparison. If I may, I don't particularly like the column names Ships Dest and I know it's due to a limit in the number of characters.

Wouldn't be better to rename it Kills?

Just a thought...

"Ship Kills" is the same number of characters, and should render a bit narrower in Aurora's font.

I meant just Kills  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: StarshipCactus

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #81 on: February 13, 2023, 04:44:48 AM »
Not sure if this is what you meant but it would be pretty based if you had a 'kills' as in people, so you bomb a planet and immediately start racking up millions.
 
The following users thanked this post: StarshipCactus, nuclearslurpee

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11657
  • Thanked: 20375 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #82 on: February 13, 2023, 04:45:48 AM »
I've changed to 'Ship Kills' - so its clear it doesn't include ground forces or missiles - and also changed 'Missiles Dest' to 'Missile Kills'.
 
The following users thanked this post: Laurence, Froggiest1982, Black, Kiero, BigBacon, StarshipCactus

Offline StarshipCactus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • S
  • Posts: 262
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2023, 02:48:14 AM »
Not sure if this is what you meant but it would be pretty based if you had a 'kills' as in people, so you bomb a planet and immediately start racking up millions.
Killtacular!
 

Offline Steve Zax

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 27
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2023, 02:03:01 PM »
I would be interested in seeing a column for terraforming cost (years to 0. 00) on the "System generation and display" screen if possible.
 

Offline deathpickle

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #85 on: February 17, 2023, 02:47:14 AM »
I really hope you have all weapons get a change like the particle beam change, and not just particle beams! Big guns are way cooler than small ones, but as it currently stands, there isn't much benefit to using them.  A beam weapon's dps is its capacitor recharge tech, with no gains from increases in focus size except in the possibility for up to 17% shock damage for larger guns, and the hope of immediately penetrating their armor in a single shot - which is really disheartening.  it means any size increase for a weapon over your capacity is essentially wasted, because the probably significantly less than 17% shock damage you've increased is practically never worth reducing your effective DPS exactly proportionately to how much over recharge capacity you are, and then some extra because bigger guns take up more space.  And for all that cost, all you do is concentrate more damage in a single area according to your damage profile, which when you really think about it, only is potentially useful on lasers that have nice profiles, plasma cannonades whose whole advantage is being bigger really has no advantage at all.  It's not impossible for the extra penetration to be worth it, but it's just feels like such a bad trade off, that it makes researching more than your capacitor recharge tech feel like a waste, meaning you mainly go for railguns (single shot) for the extra 33% damage.  Ground units gain racial weapon damage from the size of their beam tech, not the capacitor, even though for the ships it's capacitors that really determine damage, so there's clearly something off here.
Also, capacitor recharge rate being your dps means you want more quantity than quality - which is the same strategy that's good as PD, making it such a no-brainer choice.

You could make it always have the same size, and this would probably be the simplest balance wise, but the idea of bigger weapons taking up more space is too cool to not have tbh.  So the obvious thought is, increase damage proportionate to the increases in size, whilst keeping recharge costs the same as before, meaning being bigger is just as efficient a weapon in terms of DPS as a capacitor sized one, but benefits from better penetration and range.  That way there is 0 reason outside of being worse as PD fire-rate for using bigger weapons, which is of course great because that's a meaningful decision, and big guns are cool. 

The big problem is this means there are now MUCH higher penetration weapons in the game, who's only disadvantage is being worse vs missiles and extremely tiny ships.  Though it is interesting that this actually does open up some interesting gameplay funny enough.  Past a certain point, your weapons are killing your enemy in one hit, so you actually don't want to be too close, nor for your ships to be too large, meaning you're not going to want to be at close range, which is actually some pretty cool emergent gameplay, as well as maybe giving beam fighters a possible beam weapon niche? Armor combined with speed is good vs missiles, so choosing to forgo armor because of the high penetration environment creates a bigger weakness to missiles.  it's just such a choice between what you want to be good at??



But well, too much penetration is probably unacceptable tbh, so what if we went with more capacitor efficient than damage efficient? But well, a rapid fire big gun is silly.  Maybe the best balance would be a combination of the two approaches, where it is slightly more damage and fire-rate efficient to make up for the increased weaponsize.  Also, it probably shouldn't be perfectly efficient but it's still a bit less efficient to make up for the fact that it's benefiting from better penetration / shock damage profile, so light guns are best PD, medium guns are most damage efficient, and heavy guns are best penetration (but not as bad of a deal as they are now), which is just. . .  kind of realistic? You could even make it that unlike other weapons plasma cannonades have perfect damage efficiency for their larger sizes, given that their poor damage profile isn't much of an advantage anyways. 

Tbh the true solution might be to just make it proportionate in resource cost efficiency, and powerplant efficiency, DPS efficiency be damned.  Yeah its weird for something bigger to be cheaper but I mean engines are like that so.  Anyways that's enough thinking out loud.  Hopefully you will come up with something, because big weapons being bad is sad :( and it would be really cool if they had a niche as a specialized anti-beam-ship weapon.
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #86 on: February 17, 2023, 08:29:06 AM »
That way there is 0 reason outside of being worse as PD fire-rate for using bigger weapons, which is of course great because that's a meaningful decision, and big guns are cool. 


You missing the tiny reason that having a bigger gun also gives you a range advantage. If your enemy both have faster ships and longer range it doesn’t matter that your small weapons have more dps on paper, because in reality their dps will be 0 due to the enemy being able to destroy your entire fleet without moving within fire range of your guns.
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2975
  • Thanked: 2237 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #87 on: February 17, 2023, 11:09:41 AM »
That way there is 0 reason outside of being worse as PD fire-rate for using bigger weapons, which is of course great because that's a meaningful decision, and big guns are cool. 


You missing the tiny reason that having a bigger gun also gives you a range advantage. If your enemy both have faster ships and longer range it doesn’t matter that your small weapons have more dps on paper, because in reality their dps will be 0 due to the enemy being able to destroy your entire fleet without moving within fire range of your guns.

This. Particle beams specifically were changed because you can build a 2-damage PB and a 174526482-damage PB (hypothetical) with the same range. This doesn't apply to any other multiple-damage weapon types, which get more range and better damage falloff with higher calibers. In a beam fight, range + speed is a dominant advantage and it is worth having to pay for in terms of raw damage efficiency.

Also, DPS is not everything, and there is a lot of value to having a big, devastating alpha strike that can take out half the enemy firepower in the first salvo.
 

Offline deathpickle

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #88 on: February 17, 2023, 12:06:05 PM »
you're limited by the range of your beam fire control, and high damage slow firing guns don't necessarily deal any more damage at a given range.     To my knowledge, the bigger number is divided by the same ratio, and in effect is the same proportion of damage (except in the case of something rounding better.    )

Just remember, we're not talking about the tiniest guns, but say a railgun whose weapon's capacity is equivalent to the maximum recharge capacity, which will almost certainly have as much range as your largest fire control.     I'm actually using those railguns right now to outrange the raiders in my current game :)


it is kind of sad though, there does seem to be a loss no matter what if you choose to buff for bigger weapons.     If you make everything the same size, that's just lame because big guns are cool and should be bigger.     If you increase damage, then that massively increases available penetration, which nerfs armor given just how much more damage you'd need to be proportionate.     You can make it shoot faster proportionately, but that's silly and makes big guns too viable as PD.     Or you can make it cheaper, but then it's like.    .    .     why would adding more mass make it less expensive?? And honestly, I like the idea of a big gun being more expensive.     It really does seem in my mind like the best solutions are either keeping everything same size like particle cannons, or at least closer to the same size (which is the simplest), or doing only a moderate damage buff for larger guns, or even a slight combination of the two.    Edit: You would probably need to nerf capacitor tech scaling per research point investment to the same proportionate degree as the buff keep the overall damage in line.   

the state of plasma cannonades is too pitiful, and more value from being larger is definitely the most appropriate buff for them, because you don't have to worry about penetration-buffing concerns.   If they were balanced around dealing as much damage as equivalent railguns, their advantage would be better shock damage, and disadvantage being worse fire-rate for PD, and that's just a pretty cool change overall.   Edit: If one wanted to build an alpha-strike weapon, plasma cannonade is probably not the best option as lasers can use reduced size fire mode, so not much sense designing it for this purpose imo. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2023, 12:41:55 PM by deathpickle »
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2975
  • Thanked: 2237 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #89 on: February 17, 2023, 02:10:12 PM »
you're limited by the range of your beam fire control, and high damage slow firing guns don't necessarily deal any more damage at a given range.     To my knowledge, the bigger number is divided by the same ratio, and in effect is the same proportion of damage (except in the case of something rounding better.    )

I did misspeak a bit, as damage falloff is not tied to caliber per se (although there are some breakpoint differences due to rounding). My point was only to highlight that other multiple-damage weapons do have falloff while particle beams do not

However, the advantage of pure range remains and it is in many cases a total advantage for a larger-caliber weapon. If two fleets have equal speeds, the fleet with the longest-ranged weapons can control the engagement completely (barring, um, "pilot error") and fire with impunity while the other fleet is helpless to respond. Range + speed dominance is one of the biggest tactical advantages you can get in Aurora and it is entirely reasonable for that advantage to come at a premium cost of HS and DPS.

In the case of particle beams, the problem is that the range advantage is in no way whatsoever tied to weapon size, which makes larger particle beams virtually useless compared to smaller ones with higher DPS (since particle beam alpha strikes are quite poor unless you have lances). Making them all the same size puts particle beams largely on the same footing, although you still have the choice between rapid-fire and alpha-strike designs as well as specific DPS breakpoints based on your capacitor tech level.

Since lasers, railguns, and carronades do not have the same problem (i.e., larger guns have a range advantage), they do not require the same treatment.