Railguns mechanic

[Bremen]

The reduced-shot railgun was introduced to expand the design space. But as it is currently implemented the single-shot rail just out-performs the full size version, which means that the design space has changed, but hasn't expanded (except into the very rare edge case of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4-shot 10cm railgun). The RoF change to reduced-size railguns preserves the design spaces that they were meant to fill (which, I assure you, includes much more than the micro-fighter case), and restores the full-sized railguns to the design spaces they had been filling previously.

If single shot railguns clearly outperforming multishot railguns means they don't expand the design space, then the converse would also be true - multishot railguns clearly outperforming single shot railguns also wouldn't expand the design space.

I'm not saying nothing should change, I'm saying it seems like a waste if the change is just to make single shot railguns effectively useless. I'd prefer to see a change that made them both occupy useful design spaces.

[nuclearslurpee]

By the same argument, I wonder why people don't like the current single-shot railgun. Yes, its high DPS was unintentional, and it just 'outclasses' all other beam weapons in terms of DPS per tonnage, but in Aurora it is okay if not every weapon or option is as widely useful as every other

On one hand, you can argue a bit of inertia, plus multishot weapons are arguably more flavorful than single-shot even if the net effect is not too different. The goal after all was not to replace multi-shot with single-shot railguns, the goal was to add a bit specialized option for small craft to have more variety in weapons choices.

However, I would argue that the single-shot railgun as it currently is has too great of a power level. Railguns are already a quite strong beam weapon, demonstrated in several AARs by now, and along with lasers they are the only "all-purpose" beam weapons capable of effective defensive (anti-missile) and offensive (anti-ship) use both. Driving up the DPS of what is already positioned as a very good DPS weapon by a factor of ~3x, at the cost of only a ~25% reduction in alpha strike capability (which, I'd note, is even less impactful when you have ROF 5) is frankly not good for balance - and yes, I know, "Aurora isn't balanced", but I think we all know the difference between balance in the sense of general playability (good for Aurora) and balance in the sense of making every option equally viable for competitive purposes (not good for Aurora).

Really it boils down to introducing a big power spike into a game environment which was already reasonably well-balanced around the existing options, which is a different ball game from just introducing another specialized option as was originally intended.

As I said in my earlier post, I like to see Aurora providing more options rather than limit them. Put RP reasons aside, the current single shot railgun is less efficient in all terms in smaller caliber (when the recharge rate can recharge a 4-shot version in 1 or 2 ticks), and in large caliber, they provide a higher DPS at a higher cost. This provides an interesting tradeoff to consider. But the proposed changes make them always less efficient compared to the 4-shot version, thus the choice becomes uninteresting: the single-shot version is always inferior in terms of DPS (per BP or per HS) compared to the 4-shot version, it also doesn't provide a single huge alpha strike as the reduced sized lasers do. So its purpose is really questionable.

I'm not sure I'd say that its purpose is "questionable" - besides the various comments about uses for these made by others in the thread, Steve himself has said that the intention was to give fighters and other small craft more options, and this at least is accomplished by reduced-shot/size railguns. So the purpose may be more or less narrow, depending how much credence you give to the various comments others have made, but it certainly is not "questionable" - the intended purpose is clear and is accomplished reasonably well.

The current single-shot railgun also doesn't 'just outperforms the full-sized version'. The outperform is only true when the caliber is large enough that the best capacitor recharge rate cannot recharge the full-sized version in 1 or 2 ticks. This to me is a more interesting choice than the case when the 4-shot version is always superior in DPS, and the single-shot one does not provide anything other than a smaller size for its higher cost.

While true, I would argue that in most practical cases the caliber is large enough for this to be true, or else the caliber is 10cm, maybe 12cm and the weapon is intended for point defense. Which actually brings up another issue with the current single-shot railguns - they in practical terms tend to make point defense rather unnecessary in the context of a whole fleet since you can end up putting out the same volume of shots per 5/10s increment to kill missiles using solely anti-ship weapons rather than having to deploy separate PD and anti-ship weapons/ships in your fleets.

Box launchers or reduced-sized launchers trade DPS for a bigger alpha strike per HS. But where is the tradeoff in the nerfed single-shot railgun compared to the 4-shot version? Its cost is higher but it doesn't provide higher DPS nor alpha strike per HS or per BP, nor longer range, nor better penetration, nor better RoF.

I think the issue here is that when we think about box launchers, we are comparing two forms of missile launchers only - there is no other weapon besides missiles which offers the mechanics of missiles. When we think about railguns, we are considering not only 1/2/3/4-shot railguns against each other, but also against every other class of beam weapons. In that comparison, there is not really mechanically a place for an alpha/DPS split for railguns, as railguns are simply not the first-strike weapons generally speaking.

Not quite sure what 'design space' you are referring to. The current implementation of the single-shot railgun can be put on every single design that the nerfed one can. If you feel its current state limits your design, you can simply give the single-shot version a lower recharge rate when designing the weapon.

Making the argument that "if you think the feature is broken, do not use it" is not a valid argument when discussing whether or not said feature is, in fact, broken.

If single shot railguns clearly outperforming multishot railguns means they don't expand the design space, then the converse would also be true - multishot railguns clearly outperforming single shot railguns also wouldn't expand the design space.

It is not an equivalent statement, because smaller railguns expand a specific design space - small craft weapons - which large railguns do not. Conversely, there is not anything about large railguns that somehow expands the design space of large warships compared to single-shot models. If we say that four-shot railguns are superior, reduced-shot railguns still retain this design space, whereas if single-shot railguns are (generally) superior to larger models, there is no design space which is preserved for the larger railguns aside from specific edge cases.

[Density]

The current single-shot railgun also doesn't 'just outperforms the full-sized version'. The outperform is only true when the caliber is large enough that the best capacitor recharge rate cannot recharge the full-sized version in 1 or 2 ticks. This to me is a more interesting choice than the case when the 4-shot version is always superior in DPS, and the single-shot one does not provide anything other than a smaller size for its higher cost.

Box launchers or reduced-sized launchers trade DPS for a bigger alpha strike per HS. But where is the tradeoff in the nerfed single-shot railgun compared to the 4-shot version? Its cost is higher but it doesn't provide higher DPS nor alpha strike per HS or per BP, nor longer range, nor better penetration, nor better RoF.

Not quite sure what 'design space' you are referring to. The current implementation of the single-shot railgun can be put on every single design that the nerfed one can. If you feel its current state limits your design, you can simply give the single-shot version a lower recharge rate when designing the weapon.

On the point of capacitor recharge rate: If the cap rate tech needed to achieve RoF 5 on a single-shot rail is lower, that in itself is a point of comparison. This is true for every caliber of rail: at cap rate 1 a ss 10cm rail has RoF 5 and the full size has RoF 15. All the weapons have tech level sweet-spots, and of course your best options are going to change as more research is completed.

As for the "only thing" gained being size, that is quite frankly enough imo. If I can put a higher caliber ss rail in the same space as a lower caliber 4-shot rail, I'm gaining range and penetration. In other words I can choose to sacrifice dps and cost for these things instead of weight.

But on this point:

The current implementation of the single-shot railgun can be put on every single design that the nerfed one can.

I agree completely. Stating that it couldn't would be a very very strange thing to say. It also has nothing to do with my arguement.

[Steve Walmsley]

I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.

They were added so that fighters had more options. The side-effect for higher calibres was unintentional.

[Iceranger]

I feel like reduced fire rate railguns will probably only show up on the very rare edge cases of fighters so small they can't effectively use a 4shot 10cm railgun.

They were added so that fighters had more options. The side-effect for higher calibres was unintentional.

Despite being unintentional, it was interesting to some extent. Depending on the tech level, there are different cut-off points where the 4-shot railgun is more efficient or the 1-shot version is more efficient.

I say the current implementation is interesting because it provides the following 4 options that stands out from each other:

• small caliber single-shot railguns are for tiny fighters, trade higher cost for its smaller size
• small caliber multi-shot railguns are for PD roles, to provide RoF and high volume of fire
• large caliber multi-shot railguns to provide higher-than-normal DPS and some degree of PD capability
• large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability

[Iceranger]

On the point of capacitor recharge rate: If the cap rate tech needed to achieve RoF 5 on a single-shot rail is lower, that in itself is a point of comparison. This is true for every caliber of rail: at cap rate 1 a ss 10cm rail has RoF 5 and the full size has RoF 15. All the weapons have tech level sweet-spots, and of course your best options are going to change as more research is completed.

Yes the breakpoint is different based on your tech level, which makes it interesting than 'oh, the SS railguns are always less efficient'.

As for the "only thing" gained being size, that is quite frankly enough imo. If I can put a higher caliber ss rail in the same space as a lower caliber 4-shot rail, I'm gaining range and penetration. In other words I can choose to sacrifice dps and cost for these things instead of weight.

For range and penetration, why not reduce sized laser? They provide higher alpha strike, penetration, and range if you are looking for a hit-and-run fighter/FAC force.

I agree completely. Stating that it couldn't would be a very very strange thing to say. It also has nothing to do with my arguement.

The point is, the current implementation does not stop you from using the 'new' implementation if you feel like it.

[Density]

On the point of capacitor recharge rate: If the cap rate tech needed to achieve RoF 5 on a single-shot rail is lower, that in itself is a point of comparison. This is true for every caliber of rail: at cap rate 1 a ss 10cm rail has RoF 5 and the full size has RoF 15. All the weapons have tech level sweet-spots, and of course your best options are going to change as more research is completed.

Yes the breakpoint is different based on your tech level, which makes it interesting than 'oh, the SS railguns are always less efficient'.

As for the "only thing" gained being size, that is quite frankly enough imo. If I can put a higher caliber ss rail in the same space as a lower caliber 4-shot rail, I'm gaining range and penetration. In other words I can choose to sacrifice dps and cost for these things instead of weight.

For range and penetration, why not reduce sized laser? They provide higher alpha strike, penetration, and range if you are looking for a hit-and-run fighter/FAC force.

I agree completely. Stating that it couldn't would be a very very strange thing to say. It also has nothing to do with my arguement.

The point is, the current implementation does not stop you from using the 'new' implementation if you feel like it.

1. You see ss rail being less efficient as less interesting. I see ss rail supplanting full-sized rail as being less interesting. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
2. Because I have never played a game of Aurora where I have developed all the weapon systems at the same rate. If I'm developing rail and not lasers, I'm going to make different ship designs than if I'm developing lasers and not rail.
3. Still not my point. Saying it's my point does not make it my point.

[Iceranger]

I'm not sure I'd say that its purpose is "questionable" - besides the various comments about uses for these made by others in the thread, Steve himself has said that the intention was to give fighters and other small craft more options, and this at least is accomplished by reduced-shot/size railguns. So the purpose may be more or less narrow, depending how much credence you give to the various comments others have made, but it certainly is not "questionable" - the intended purpose is clear and is accomplished reasonably well.

Its intended role doesn't need this recharge nerf to fulfill.

While true, I would argue that in most practical cases the caliber is large enough for this to be true, or else the caliber is 10cm, maybe 12cm and the weapon is intended for point defense. Which actually brings up another issue with the current single-shot railguns - they in practical terms tend to make point defense rather unnecessary in the context of a whole fleet since you can end up putting out the same volume of shots per 5/10s increment to kill missiles using solely anti-ship weapons rather than having to deploy separate PD and anti-ship weapons/ships in your fleets.

This cut-off point is different for different tech levels and research progress, which makes it interesting compared to 'SS railguns are always weaker in terms of DPS'.

I think the issue here is that when we think about box launchers, we are comparing two forms of missile launchers only - there is no other weapon besides missiles which offers the mechanics of missiles. When we think about railguns, we are considering not only 1/2/3/4-shot railguns against each other, but also against every other class of beam weapons. In that comparison, there is not really mechanically a place for an alpha/DPS split for railguns, as railguns are simply not the first-strike weapons generally speaking.

Comparing to other beam weapons, SS railguns do not stand out at all. Since the original intended purpose is for fighters/FACs, let's check different utilities:
PD: 4-shot railguns or max tech gauss fulfill this role the best
DPS: again 4-shot railgun excel in this category, after the proposed nerf (usually doesn't matter for fighter caliber unless at extremely low tech where fighter themselves are questionable due to the lack of proper engine boost tech)
Alpha strike: reduce-sized laser is the go-to choice here
Penetration: again reduce-sized laser is again the go-to choice here. A non-reduced 10cm laser has the same penetration as a 35cm railgun, and a SS 35cm railgun is larger than a 10cm laser.
Range: laser wins again.

So it ends up in a position of 'different, but not different enough'

Making the argument that "if you think the feature is broken, do not use it" is not a valid argument when discussing whether or not said feature is, in fact, broken.

Broken is subjective in a game like Aurora where it is mostly an RP tool. In this case, providing more options is better than having fewer. It's not like everyone else is using SS railguns only will affect your gameplay in any way if you choose not to use it.

[Iceranger]

1. You see ss rail being less efficient as less interesting. I see ss rail supplanting full-sized rail as being less interesting. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
2. Because I have never played a game of Aurora where I have developed all the weapon systems at the same rate. If I'm developing rail and not lasers, I'm going to make different ship designs than if I'm developing lasers and not rail.
3. Still not my point. Saying it's my point does not make it my point.

You misunderstood my point in (1). I was not saying SS railguns being less efficient is less interesting. I was saying SS railguns always being less efficient is less interesting than there are cases, depending on your tech progress, where SS railguns can be more efficient than full-sized ones and less efficient in other cases.

For (2), you totally right, every player has their own preferred way to play, thanks to the flexibility of the general game design. How one plays doesn't affect how others play at all, and one (perhaps other than Steve since this is his game after all ) cannot say others' way of play is invalid or not good. Thus I always prefer more options than fewer options. Under the current implementation, a player who doesn't like the more efficient SS railguns can use lower capacitor charge tech to achieve this. But after the proposed change, a player who prefers SS railguns being better can no longer use it.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

1. You see ss rail being less efficient as less interesting. I see ss rail supplanting full-sized rail as being less interesting. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
2. Because I have never played a game of Aurora where I have developed all the weapon systems at the same rate. If I'm developing rail and not lasers, I'm going to make different ship designs than if I'm developing lasers and not rail.
3. Still not my point. Saying it's my point does not make it my point.

You misunderstood my point in (1). I was not saying SS railguns being less efficient is less interesting. I was saying SS railguns always being less efficient is less interesting than there are cases, depending on your tech progress, where SS railguns can be more efficient than full-sized ones and less efficient in other cases.

For (2), you totally right, every player has their own preferred way to play, thanks to the flexibility of the general game design. How one plays doesn't affect how others play at all, and one (perhaps other than Steve since this is his game after all ) cannot say others' way of play is invalid or not good. Thus I always prefer more options than fewer options. Under the current implementation, a player who doesn't like the more efficient SS railguns can use lower capacitor charge tech to achieve this. But after the proposed change, a player who prefers SS railguns being better can no longer use it.

The current implementation of railguns simply make them too effective at above certain tech levels, that is just a fact.

Single shot or smaller railguns was only intended to be used on smaller crafts where a full size would not fit.

These are just facts that we know are true. I don't see how moving the design from multi shot to singe shot railgun design on larger ships adds anything other than unbalance as there is no choice involved here, you should always make them smaller if you can reduce their fire rate as well as that dramatically increase your damage output.

We have to look at general game balance first. I don't think that there need to be perfect balance in the game, but there need to be some balance and adding up to 3x the damage output to a beam weapon is a bit broken.

Reduced size railguns are suppose to be a niche system and not better than full size railguns, just as reduced sized lasers have a niche in a similar vein.

[Garfunkel]

It's really weird that you're using different calibers to illustrate the difference, since it's a specific example that makes the problem bigger. And then ignores things like power plants or the extra range of the larger railgun.

I used those because they are the "best" damage output railguns you can get at a equal RP investment. Yes, it might be unfair to compare different calibres but, in my opinion, the fact that 40cm RG's outdamage 45cm RG's is another important point to make. The powerplant investment and the range difference are both meaningless just like the cost is because the damage difference is almost TRIPLE.

In what world can anyone claim that the current drawbacks of SS RG's are so bad that you would throw out the possibility of 3x damage? It's easy to forget that difference if we're just talking hypothetically because then it can seem that a "oh it costs this much more"-drawback makes them balanced. But when you see that the difference in actual damage output is TRIPLED, you know that the drawbacks need to be on another level of magnitude.

This wouldn't be a problem if the SS RG's made 50% more damage than an equivalent size MS RG because yeah then the other drawbacks would make for interesting design choices. But when it does almost 300% more damage while also taking up less space, the drawbacks are so minuscule compared to the advantages that they can be safely ignored.

[Iceranger]

The current implementation of railguns simply make them too effective at above certain tech levels, that is just a fact.

This is simply not ture. In the current implementation, on almost all perhaps except the first tech lever, there are railgun calibers that full-sized ones are more effective, or SS ones are more effective. This cut-off caliber is higher when the tech level is higher.

Single shot or smaller railguns was only intended to be used on smaller crafts where a full size would not fit.

This is true, but as you said later, a niche use case. And the current implementation can find more roles than just this single niche role. Quoting myself from another post:

• small caliber single-shot railguns are for tiny fighters, trade higher cost for its smaller size
• small caliber multi-shot railguns are for PD roles, to provide RoF and high volume of fire
• large caliber multi-shot railguns to provide higher-than-normal DPS and some degree of PD capability
• large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability

Having 1 game mechanics for just a niche use case is, imo, a questionable design.

We have to look at general game balance first. I don't think that there need to be perfect balance in the game, but there need to be some balance and adding up to 3x the damage output to a beam weapon is a bit broken.

Reduced size railguns are suppose to be a niche system and not better than full size railguns, just as reduced sized lasers have a niche in a similar vein.

I don't think balance play much of a big role in an essentially RP tool. If you feel SS railgun is OP, you can choose not to use it without affecting your gameplay anyway. It's not like there is PVP in Aurora or the AI is minmaxing.

Currently the SS railgun has about 3x the DPS per HS, 2x the DPS per BP compared to full-sized ones. Perhaps rather than limiting its charge rate to 1/4 of the full-sized the ones, limit it to 1/2 (and scales linearly for other variants). In this way, it will have about the same DPS per BP, about 1.5x DPS per HS (at the cost of 1.5x the cost) compared to the full-sized ones. So it can still have the variaties of roles I listed above, but not as outstanding as it is now.

[Ektor]

Can't we just throw a 50% capacitor penalty to SS, as in the less shots, the less efficient the capacitor? Not in a way to completely equalize SS and 4-shot DPS, but still give a marginal DPS increase for SS that's not as grotesque as 300%? Because you could balance their cost around this if the bonus in damage isn't numerically overpowered.

So a 4shot 10cm with capacitor 1 recharges in 15 seconds, as it needs 3 charge.

A 1 shot right now takes 0.75 charge, how about it taking 1.125 or 1.5?

The current change would make the single shot take the same 15 seconds, but this change would reduce it to 10, which is still higher DPS, but not so immensely so, and a scaling mineral or RP cost might be also done similarly. As in, if a SS railgun takes 25% of the RP of a 4-shot, then perhaps it could take 50% instead.

This is the same "negative scaling" as it has with size. The 4-shot is always more efficient tonnage wise, so it could also be more efficient in other areas, whilst still allowing reduced shot railguns to fulfill their increased DPS roles.

Another thing that this reminds me of is that reduced size lasers REALLY need a DPS buff, because they're slow to the point of unusability.

[Garfunkel]

This is true, but as you said later, a niche use case. And the current implementation can find more roles than just this single niche role. Quoting myself from another post:

• small caliber single-shot railguns are for tiny fighters, trade higher cost for its smaller size
• small caliber multi-shot railguns are for PD roles, to provide RoF and high volume of fire
• large caliber multi-shot railguns to provide higher-than-normal DPS and some degree of PD capability
• large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability

Having 1 game mechanics for just a niche use case is, imo, a questionable design.

Not a bad idea at all if you can get the numbers right.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

• small caliber single-shot railguns are for tiny fighters, trade higher cost for its smaller size
• small caliber multi-shot railguns are for PD roles, to provide RoF and high volume of fire
• large caliber multi-shot railguns to provide higher-than-normal DPS and some degree of PD capability
• large caliber single-shot railguns are to provide the highest DPS, at the cost of higher cost, higher power draw, and limited PD capability

Having 1 game mechanics for just a niche use case is, imo, a questionable design.

I don't see any point in where I EVER would put a 35cm railgun as a 4-shot version over three single shot versions when the latter have three times the damage output... no one cares about the slightly reduced PD capability of such weapons in any way. There is not a choice here. Even if you change the distribution of the damage output to be less... you put these large guns on a ship for the ability to deliver damage at range not for PD. Railguns already have the highest DPS per power used so they already fill that niche to begin with. No matter how you do it you probably are better of with reduced sized large guns combined with small short range ones for PD no matter how you design it.

Balance is still quite important to a certain degree even for RP purposes otherwise we could just pretend everything and just write stories.