New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot (aka Arc Disruptor)

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#46 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:51 am
Oberlus wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:35 pmThese MSA/MSB weapons are not for the NTT. The NTT will take a lot of time to be implemented, and I assume Ophiuchus is thinking on adding this in the short time (which I like), fitting with the current weapon system and not the stuff drafted for the NTT.
As you already know (since you've participated in the threads where all the stuff about the themes and the weapons for it), I already have a rather clear idea of what would be the weapon system. It has pulsed laser, railguns, coilguns, missiles, torpedoes, tentacles, spines, assault troops, etc. If you intend to do an alternative proposal, you have my green light.
I don't want to step on any toes, but if I have your green light I'll give you a taste of what I am thinking. If missiles and MSA and MSB go through this gives us five families of weapons. Single-shot direct weapons, multi-shot direct weapons, missiles, fighters/drones and the "monster parts". You could have each theme specialize in one type of weapon. I'll make a proper thread about it later tonight.
I mean you have my green light to make the design, probably in a dedicated thread, instead of pollute the discussions on other subjects. This is not about the NTT.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#47 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:02 amI mean you have my green light to make the design, probably in a dedicated thread, instead of pollute the discussions on other subjects. This is not about the NTT.
Agreed. Sorry if I got over-excited from the creative juices flowing.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#48 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:53 pm The problem I see with the original proposal is that the niche is very constrained, specially in time (suboptimal late game).
It was not intended to be good in late game. So investment less relevant than fighters but a more relevant than mass driver and lasers.

I think our discussion gets complicated because I am looking for a special-purpose tool and you are looking for an alternative weapon line.
Oberlus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:53 pm As a pilot-independent weapon, bombers and fighters are comparable to the GBS against undefended ships but better against defended ones.
Bombers and Fighters are not pilot-independent, so I fail to see the similarity here.
Oberlus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:53 pm And this is worse late game: fighters are a viable strategy for both killing fleets of shielded and unshielded ships, and comparable to GBS at killing comsats (fighters can kill 3 per turn, total 6, GBS only 1.5 per turn, total 4.5).
Currently a fighter has 3 to 5 shots per battle and the 3-shot GBS has 9 shots (assuming the shooter is not downed). If fighter need 1 shot and GBS needs 2, this looks similar. For launch bauch + hangar costs about the same amount as GBS, but needs double the part slots. So depending on your hull types, GBS could be more effective on downing late game comsats as well. Also GBS lowers the number of bouts chaff is in the game (see answer to your next comment).

Note also I suggested applying pilot skill to the 3-shot GBS in a guarded way. I get the feeling you are focussing on end game and forget about early/mid game. (As said, i do not have late game in the design scope)

GBS-2 is able to down a late-game comsat using two shots and is comparatively cheap in RP. GBS-3 (or GBS-2 with great pilots) does 5 damage, means two shots for e.g. basic small hull chaff.

Note also I chose 40PP because I was afraid of making this weapon too powerful. If that is not the case, it can be cheaper.
Oberlus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:53 pm In multiplayer games recently, with the latest base hull change, fleets focused on bombers were great at taking down comsats (not shooting on bout 1 wasn't a problem since the comsats were not soaking much damage on bout 1). So I think the GBS with this specs would have little use in-game, more so if you consider that you don't see big chunks of comsats early game (when this weapons is competitive).
If you down the enemy chaff the first bout, you win one bout of doing damage. For beam weapon that means 50% more efficiency currently (and 33% more efficent with 4 combat bouts).
Not sure how competitive comsat is in early game now, so currently I can not comment on it. I would guess it still works wonders against early invasion(?).
Oberlus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:53 pmIf you allow the GBS to make use of pilots trait and add a fourth tech (third refinement) for it you get more or less my multishot-A suggestion, with one less damage per shot at start to make it comparable to laser: better versus unshielded (much better versus unshield small), much worse versus shielded.
Yes, quite similar. The main difference for me is that its not as accessible as the GBS because of the comparably high research cost. I wanted this to be fielded in mass driver era. If it is available so early, IMHO it can not apply pilot bonus unconditionally. And if we allow pilot bonus it IMHO should be able to down comsats in a single shot with great pilots (e.g. late hull comsat structure 7).

I suggested starting at 3 damage, because base hull structure is currently 3 and only two upgrade techs which lands us both at 5 max damage without pilot skill.

We could also think of reworking pilot skill for this weapon. E.g. only applying extra damage for nearly death shots - in that case great pilots do double damage death kill shots - e.g. 3-shot GBS-2 with great pilot 4 damage and against a target with currently maximum 8 structure, 8 damage (this is not currently possible though - needs a targetGroup feature or conditional damage feature). This is longer term though, so probably wrong discussion here.
Oberlus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:53 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:34 pmIf we want to use pilot skill I think I would rather go for setting base hull to two damage, make the weapon damage-2 and have the number of shots increased, maybe have this automatically available like the flak cannon - lets call it Mine-thrower or something.
So pilots increase fire rate (like flak) and techs increase damage? Sounds like refinements for the flak
No, flak is only targeting fighters which makes it a very different beast (as you should know). But else, yes, it is a simple multi-shot which scales like flak, just double the damage and (also) targeting ships, by "coincidence" very good at downing early comsat. If we make it 30PP and 3 shots it is very similar in damage (6 vs 5 damage) and in scaling (+2 damage per level) to laser against unshielded targets (and useless against shields). It should have two or three tech upgrades using the usual research scaling. So in early mid-game this could probably kill 7 comsats. It would down about 1,5 upgraded comsats and would generally minimize/smooth out overkill.

So I really think we should down the base hull structure to 2. And either 2-shot or pilot-skill-guarded 3-shot GBS. And add mass driver 5 tech.

If you do a separate multi-shot weapon line, it should be probably the 2-shot GBS, else the 3-shot GBS.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#49 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:40 pm I think our discussion gets complicated because I am looking for a special-purpose tool and you are looking for an alternative weapon line.
I'm OK with it being just a speciallised comsat-spam counter, the anti-chaff (small chaff) weapon.
But armored chaff late game would be too powerful for the GBS and the fighters would be better. And if they are better late game and comparable early game, why bother mounting GBS that will become obsolete?
Bombers and Fighters are not pilot-independent, so I fail to see the similarity here.
Doh! Sorry, I was confused. Then I'm all in for the weapon to not be affected by pilots trait.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#50 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus, what about this?:

(As you suggested:)
- Down Base Hull structure to 2.
- Make GBS start at 2 per damage (keep cost at 40 PP, tech 4 turns 12 RPs).

So early game GBS can take down 3 comsats per bout (9 per combat). DMG/PP per combat is 0.45/0.0 (target undefended/shielded), like MD1. Bomber1 has 0.44/0.22, Fighter1 0.36/0.18. GBS is better at dealing damage at unshielded targets, better at taking down comsats, and can take down fighters, but does not soak damage. All are good strategies depending on the circumstances. Seems reasonable to make research costs of the unlocking tech similar to figthers.

After comsats are reinforced (structure 7), the GBS needs 4 shots to take down one comsat (2 comsats per combat) (so...).

- Second tech (first refinement) gives +2 per shot up to 4, 8 turns, 120 RPs.

Now GBS can take downs 1.5 comsats per bout (4.5 per combat). DMG/PP per combat raises up to 0.9-0.0, comparable to MD4/L3/P2 against unshielded. Better than Bomber2/Fighter2, worse than 3. As good as Bomber2 at taking down comsats, better than Fighter2, worse than Fighter3. Making it more expensive than Laser and less than Plasma in research cost seems reasonable, since this weapon is more vulnerable to shields.

- Third tech gives +3 per shot up to 7, 12 turns, 720 RPs.

Late game it can take down 9 comsats per combat, fighters only 6 (assuming 1.5 launch bays per each fighter hangar). DMG/PP per combat is 1.575/0.0 (target undefended/shield9), like P5 and slightly better than DR4 against unshielded. GBS3 is the best weapon at downing reinforced comsats. Research cost more expensive than Plasma and cheaper than DR1.

The greater increases of damage per shot make the weapon a viable strategy throughtout the game for its anti-chaff role (not only against comsats but also against small-size and lightly armored chaff), without predating any other weapon:
  • Bombers4 can deal more damage to both shielded and unshielded targets, and soak some damage, but GBS is much faster at taking down small chaff (<8 structure), and similarly fast at taking down lightly armored chaff (15-21 structure).
  • Fighters4 also deal more total damage than GBS3, and soak shots, and are as good as GBS at taking down fighters, but the GBS3 shooting from bout 1 gives it some edge against medium-sized chaff.
  • Flaks are still a good choice against fighter-focused fleets (6-12 fighters down per bout for the same PPs than a GBS, compared to 3 per bout).
With these specs I would use the GBS both early and late game (depending on the situation). With the original ones (5 per shot last upgrade) I would not bother, since building bombers instead would be competitive against reinforced comsats and better late game against anything else including unshielded chaff bigger than base hulls.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#51 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:06 pm Ophiuchus, what about this?:
...
- Down Base Hull structure to 2.
- Make GBS start at 2 per damage (keep cost at 40 PP, tech 4 turns 12 RPs).
...
- Second tech (first refinement) gives +2 per shot up to 4, 8 turns, 120 RPs.
...
- Third tech gives +3 per shot up to 7, 12 turns, 720 RPs.
I like this very much. Also the reasoning. Not sure about turns but good enough.

For close future i think following changes are in the pipeline:
  • the KISS hard targeting - so fighters would loose the chaff effect against ship weapons. The fighters would get a buff for balance. Either way I think this does not invalidate your comparison.
  • 4 turns default (or n turns) - in this case I would keep base hull structure at two and reinforced hull effect at five instead of scaling it up; so downing comsats would happen one turn more often but the the damage for downing would be the same
  • (? reinforced hull redesign ?)
  • range-based weapons and contracting distances (long,short,close,close turns). No idea how that effects balancing. So first application with a balancing pass: monster weapons
I think the discussion is advanced enough for getting your suggested values into master. I also think the design is robust enough so there is wiggle room for quick balancing if we need it.

Two questions:

The one thing which is not decided is the combatTargets conditions. I am pretty sure that ships and fighters should be targeted.
I am not sure if planets should be included. Planets would shield chaff, but not being able to target planets means the fleet needs some shortrange weapons for invasion, also GBS is doing good damage against planets (no ship shields) so maybe it is OP for invasion. We could start targeting planets starting from e.g. bout 2 or 3. Also as long as KISS hard targeting has not landed, we could attack ships and fighters on the first tier and fall back to planets if there are none.

Also I would like to hear if you have an objection against MD-7 at 100 RP 4 turns.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#52 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am Not sure about turns but good enough.
[...]
there is wiggle room for quick balancing if we need it.
Yes.
The reasoning for the research costs were like this:
- If two weapons are able to deal similar damage per combat, their techs should cost similar.
- Weapons that can be upgraded until late game (currently only hangars) should cost more than same-damage weapons that will become obsolet.

See MD4 (6 turns, 20 RPs, 0.9 CombatDmg/PP) and L1 (8 turns, 30 RPs, 0.5 CombatDmg/PP): L1 is much worse than MD4, yet it's cheaper. The same happens with Laser-Plasma and Plasma-DR.

The fighter upgrades require the main weapon upgrades. Summing them up (RPs:turns):
- Figthers1: 6:3
- Fighters2: 50:10
- Fighters3: 250:10
- Fighters4: 1250:13
Total 36 turns. The GBS3 needs 24 turns and less than 850 total, for a weapon that can compete with or even surpass Fighters4 against fleets of certain characteristics (small and unshielded).
The one thing which is not decided is the combatTargets conditions. I am pretty sure that ships and fighters should be targeted.
I am not sure if planets should be included.
I think they should target planets too. Shielding the chaff is irrelevant IMO, and being able to use it against planets while fighters can gives it some extra edge that seems necessary. It should not be OP against planets if the CombatDmg/PP are properly balanced.
We could start targeting planets starting from e.g. bout 2 or 3. Also as long as KISS hard targeting has not landed, we could attack ships and fighters on the first tier and fall back to planets if there are none.
Agree to both.
That "do not target X until bout Y" is a great condition to add.
Also I would like to hear if you have an objection against MD-7 at 100 RP 4 turns.
I don't think we need it. MDs have a purpose; early blitzkriegs that sacrifice early development for extra military power to invest in conquest that will fail if target manages to produce some newer ships. If that rushed fleet of MDs can be further amortised and compete with the lasers for longer and make blitzkriegs less risky... I don't know. I don't have a clear idea of whether blitzkriegs are balanced or not.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#53 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:44 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am The one thing which is not decided is the combatTargets conditions. I am pretty sure that ships and fighters should be targeted.
I am not sure if planets should be included.
I think they should target planets too.
Agreed.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:44 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am We could start targeting planets starting from e.g. bout 2 or 3. Also as long as KISS hard targeting has not landed, we could attack ships and fighters on the first tier and fall back to planets if there are none.
Agree to both.
That "do not target X until bout Y" is a great condition to add.
The "do not target X until bout Y" condition is already implemented, but the "do not target X until bout Y" feature will probably take some time as the UI and AI issues I discovered when FOCS-implementing missiles (e.g. total damage estimation, damage visualisation). Currently the condition can be wholeheartly used for monsters (no UI/AI). Those issues also need to be addressed for the range based attacks.
We should keep this option in mind for the time the infrastructure is there. Not sure how to proceed there, but will put up another thread. I will leave the combatCondition the default one (so including planets) - AI can handle that.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:44 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am Also I would like to hear if you have an objection against MD-7 at 100 RP 4 turns.
I don't think we need it. MDs have a purpose; early blitzkriegs that sacrifice early development for extra military power to invest in conquest that will fail if target manages to produce some newer ships. If that rushed fleet of MDs can be further amortised and compete with the lasers for longer and make blitzkriegs less risky... I don't know. I don't have a clear idea of whether blitzkriegs are balanced or not.
I think 100RP are a bit late in game for blitzkrieg. Good and great pilots (which are blitzkrieg affine) probably prefer switching to weapon lines with greater steps (e.g. Laser-3 with good pilots is already at 0.43 damage/PP, MD-5 with good pilots is at 0.4dpPP). So MD5 is rather an option for bad pilot species (same as L4 0.30dpPP against unshielded; 0.15dpPP vs L3 0.13dpPP vs L4 0.2dpPP against shield-3), and taking down 7 structure comsats with your surviving early fleet (if you have average species). I would hope this makes early fleet a little bit better investment - so i'd like to put this into the wild and let you see if any multiplayers go for it.

I have a gut feeling our design for the GBS is too PP expensive (e.g. 35PP would be better, 0,17dpPP vs MD1 0,15dpPP vs MD2 0,20dpPP). Weapon should be a valid option for average pilot empires. But I think there are quite some changes upcoming (shield cost, fighter targeting,..) so we need a balancing pass anyway. So I will finish up the GBS so it can be merged.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#54 Post by Oberlus »

I think a 100 RPs tech to up MDs to 7 damage would not be used by most players. Getting lasers (and upping them) would always be preferred. I wouldn't bother adding such tech.

Not sure about the 35 cost for GBS.
Edit: if you can get the GBS in 4 turns for 40 RPs, chances are that a 35 PP part will predate MDs early game.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#55 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm I think a 100 RPs tech to up MDs to 7 damage would not be used by most players. Getting lasers (and upping them) would always be preferred. I wouldn't bother adding such tech.
Yes, I agree for maybe 95% of cases. I just think those other 5% would be interesting. Plus one damage means three damage per combat (and 25% more damage against shield-3). If 100RP are too crippling, lets say 80RP (or 60RP as Laser-1). If I had 10 MDs in ships I would certainly upgrade those for 60RP if I am engaged in combat or if those survived until structure-7 base hull.
Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm Not sure about the 35 cost for GBS.
Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm Edit: if you can get the GBS in 4 turns for 40 RPs, chances are that a 35 PP part will predate MDs early game.
What do you mean by predate? Two md-4 do 12 damage gbs-1 will do 9 damage (for average pilot).

I tested AI and I found that the current structure is not a good fit for the GBS. As far as I get it the current research approach are the blocks and tiers of predefined TechLists and some fast tracking in ResearchAI. I did not see anything to delay/prevent research of certain techs. As the gamma burst slingshot gives an alternative to the normal weapon line tree this means a lot of waste of research (same happens with the hull lines). Gysache as bad pilot empire should go for the current GBS (this i can script) and NOT go for MD-4 at all and not for Lasers in the beginning (those I can not script) - also the AI can not figure out future usefulness of weapon tech in research. The current weapon lines kind of works well because those are very well structured and uniform (e.g. plasma tech is basically to laser tech what laser tech is to mass drivers).

Will probably ask the AI team for an idea how they would solve tech suppression/alternative tech lines.

Even more important I found that deuterium tank does not get researched. I consider it a must if you have bad fuel efficiency hulls. That maybe should is release blocking and should go into 0.4.9
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#56 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm Not sure about the 35 cost for GBS.
Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm Edit: if you can get the GBS in 4 turns for 40 RPs, chances are that a 35 PP part will predate MDs early game.
Bump:

What do you mean by predate? Two md-3 (12RP) do 10 damage (for average pilot) GBS-1 (12RP, 3x2) will do 6 damage. This is worse than Laser-1.

If you compare Laser-1 (60RP) and MD-3 (12RP) it has the same damage 10 and is 33% less PP cost efficient. Or the other way round for the same PP MD-3 does 50% more damage. But of course Laser-1 has cheap upgrade options (+100RP Laser-3) which almost doubles its damage.

The main difference with GBS to the main line upgrades would be that you never have cheap upgrade options.

It would be definitely ok if GBS-1 is on MD-2 level (4x2) I would say. MD can still be bumped up two levels for comparatively nuffing in RP (20RP vs 60RP). Even for bad pilots MD4 would be better than GBS-1 as a main weapon (and MD5 would help that distinction). And GBS-1 is worthless against shields. MD-4 at least has 50% damage.

If we keep 3x2 i think the part should be cheaper - e.g. like 30PP to 35PP.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#57 Post by Oberlus »

Sorry to forget about this.
Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm Edit: if you can get the GBS in 4 turns for 40 RPs, chances are that a 35 PP part will predate MDs early game.
I've lost track of this. Where did I get those 40 RPs in 4 turns? Was I talking about GBS-1 or GBS-2? <sighs>

What's your current preference of damage and RP cost of each tech upgrade?

By "predate" I meant "most players will prefer to build its first armed ship with GBS-1 instead of MD-*". But that will be true only if upgrading to GBS-2 is competitive with getting laser.

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:21 amIf you compare Laser-1 (60RP) and MD-3 (12RP) it has the same damage 105 and is 33% less PP cost efficient. Or the other way round for the same PP MD-3 does 50% more damage. But of course Laser-1 has cheap upgrade options (+100RP Laser-3) which almost doubles its damage.
Because of the part in bold I don't do comparisons for levels 2 and 3. Only chances someone will stick to a level 2 or 3 weapon is if upgrading them will not reduce the number of hits immediate enemies can endure.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#58 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:01 am Sorry to forget about this.
Oberlus wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:27 pm Edit: if you can get the GBS in 4 turns for 40 RPs, chances are that a 35 PP part will predate MDs early game.
I've lost track of this. Where did I get those 40 RPs in 4 turns? Was I talking about GBS-1 or GBS-2? <sighs>
I dont know what you meant. I guess you were talking about GBS-2. Currently GBS-2 is at 60 RP in the PR.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:01 am What's your current preference of damage and RP cost of each tech upgrade?
I thought the stuff in the PR to be okay-ish. A little UP, but thats what i would address by making the part a bit cheaper.

Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:01 am By "predate" I meant "most players will prefer to build its first armed ship with GBS-1 instead of MD-*". But that will be true only if upgrading to GBS-2 is competitive with getting laser.
Comparing at 120PP: 4/3GBS-2 (30PP/40PP) vs 4 Laser-1/Laser-3: 4x3x4/3x3x4 also 48/36 vs 20/36 von 4x5/4x9. [email protected] would be OP for 60RP (acceptable at 120RP) - [email protected] for 120RP would be UP. How about one of those: [email protected] for 100RP, [email protected] for 60RP or [email protected] for 40RP.

I think the upgradability of GBS is already balanced by the anti-shield uselessness so having access to a raw level 3 or 4 weapon power (i.e dam/PP) is fine. Question is how much RP it should cost - so e.g. [email protected] for the same amount of RP to bring lasers from 1 to 3 seems sensible (i.e.100RP).
Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:01 am don't do comparisons for levels 2 and 3. Only chances someone will stick to a level 2 or 3 weapon is if upgrading them will not reduce the number of hits immediate enemies can endure.
Level two is always a no-brainer because it is so cheap, but i always try if i can skip level four (20% of next weapon) if I am better at PP vs RP.
Always depends how many weapons of that type are (going to be) fielded of course (spending 40RP to upgrade a single mass driver (i.e. 3 damage per bout in all) could be waste. And with great pilots i try to rush weapon types.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#59 Post by Oberlus »

You get GBS-1 ASAP, build first armed ships with it. When you get GBS-2 (slightly after your enemies can get L-1), all your old ships have the power of one L-4 for each GBS. Only for 30 PPs? That's OP: you add to your GBS ships a bomber hangar and then your enemies have two options: mount shields (and get less ships per same PPs) so you overcome them with your bombers (incredibly cost-efficient when fighting shielded ships because of high shield cost), or do not mount shields and be punished hard from your GBSs. Also, chaff never has shields, and fleets that use chaff shall have more decoy ships than armed ships, so your GBS will still hit mostly unshielded ships. Also, GBS is so good against chaff even when compared to bombers, because they shoot from bout one.
The more I think about it, the more I think 35 PPs might be low.

Should we remove fighters from the equation, GBS should cost 30 PPs. But that's not the case.

That's my opinion, I haven't run simulations or spreadsheets.

Edit: IFF GBS is going to target fighter/missiles too, only then I would think 35 could be fine, but not 30 PPs, too much better than flak cannons for only +50% cost.

Edit 2: PS, I have run some spreadsheets for shielded vs unshielded ships, to see if the costs I proposed where balanced, and I found that for battles without fighters shielded ships are most often better than unshielded ones (battles of fleets with same PPs on each side, shielded ships would always win versus unshielded ships, if not in a single turn). So the cost was actually well balanced until fighters were introduced.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New weapon part - Gamma Burst Slingshot

#60 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:34 pm You get GBS-1 ASAP, build first armed ships with it. When you get GBS-2 (slightly after your enemies can get L-1), all your old ships have the power of one L-4 for each GBS. Only for 30 PPs
You are mixing numbers. The 30PP example was intended at about the time where the enemy has L-3 (or shields). L3s are way more robust than GBS-2 - if the enemy fields shields, suddenly all your fleet is outdated (much more than if you had build MD first).
Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:34 pmyou add to your GBS ships a bomber hangar and then your enemies have two options: mount shields (and get less ships per same PPs) so you overcome them with your bombers (incredibly cost-efficient when fighting shielded ships because of high shield cost), or do not mount shields and be punished hard from your GBSs. Also, chaff never has shields, and fleets that use chaff shall have more decoy ships than armed ships, so your GBS will still hit mostly unshielded ships.
...
Should we remove fighters from the equation, GBS should cost 30 PPs. But that's not the case.
One point you seem to argue that bombers are too effective against shields which is not directly related to power level of GBS. It is OK that GBS and bombers are orthogonal. For the combination of good GBS and good bombers you have to research the whole mainline AND whole GBS line.
While the effect does add up (bombers as counter to the counter of GBS) and I think it does not multiply. If one uses Bombers alongside GBS, the counter is as usual: interceptors or flak. Of course your shielded ships would not be invincible anymore.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:34 pmAlso, GBS is so good against chaff even when compared to bombers, because they shoot from bout one.
Being chaff killers is the main concept of GBS, bombers are not the prime tool for it. Bombers should be shield killers first.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:34 pm Edit: IFF GBS is going to target fighter/missiles too, only then I would think 35 could be fine, but not 30 PPs, too much better than flak cannons for only +50% cost.
Flak is super good at countering fighters (I am afraid I will see an example of that in the coming turn) especially with good pilots. For me it would be ok if GBS also targets fighters/missiles, but I am not sure if that makes it less powerful or more powerful. Certainly more versatile and less concentrated.
Oberlus wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:34 pm Edit 2: PS, I have run some spreadsheets for shielded vs unshielded ships, to see if the costs I proposed where balanced, and I found that for battles without fighters shielded ships are most often better than unshielded ones (battles of fleets with same PPs on each side, shielded ships would always win versus unshielded ships, if not in a single turn). So the cost was actually well balanced until fighters were introduced.
Yes, that was to be expected. We need a new balance - GBS would make shields a great option for some situations.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Post Reply