concepts like these always gravitate towards weapons that are "better".
so, lets say the supernova is about the BEST you should have to fight capital ships.
- no ammo
- fairly fast projectile speed so you can hit a battleship even from 2000
- unbeatable damage
- no blast damage, so the size of the target does t matter
but if its the BEST - how can we even think of making better ones?
we talk about variety - but this variety plays around with the optimal stats. - so lets say, EVERY stat on the supernova is optimal, its the best you can get...
- no ammo cannot be beaten, supernovas can already be spammed without turning your brain on even a bit
- the projectile cannot really be faster - cause whats the point? you can already hit a cap from afar - faster projectile = better vs. smaller and faster ships - but thats not what we want, is it?
- great damage - easy there... give the torp more damage, give the capitals more armour... and whats the point then
- damage type, - not much room there
concepts about variety usually tend to GIVE something and TAKE something. - and based on the player suggesting, what they TAKE is usually a bit less than what they GIVE.
so, when the factionized supernovas were suggested, there was a hell lot of bias in the concepts of each faction concept. - ranging from "we ll have it under control not to pass it to factions with better ships" to "we need it, cause we ALWAYS fight greater odds" to "hell, we deserve it".
that does sound negative much, i know.. . - but the point is. balance is a very precious and fragile thing with so many ships and shipclasses.
the simple calculation of - lets take 100 speed and give it 10.000 damage ... doesn t work. the effect is unpredictable. - but one can be SURE about one thing....
players are VERY VERY good at spotting weaknesses and powers of anything. ( one might call it exploits ) - and whatst he result of that? - restrict its use?
all players are biased. - very often without knowing. so i might suggest to add a gun that does 10.000 damage at a projectile speed of 2000 ( sniper ) and a range of 1500 - taking like 80% of a VHF energy - and a refire rate of 1 / minute.
looks balanced? - i don t think so - the consequence is that it can very easily take out a lower armoured ship in one hit - some might say "no skill weapon" - others will point at the massive disadvantages of the extremely low refire rate and the huge energy need.
look at missiles.
they trade off a lot for their ability to do more damage than guns and have a bit of tracking. - they use ammo ( great disadvantage ), they can be CMed, they can blow yourself up, they are affected by lag more than guns ( not each single projectile - but a percentage of the shots fired ).
but what did players make? - they told themselves - we ignore the disadvantage of ammo, cause we go for the FAST kill instead of the prolonged fight. - it took players over one year !! to figure that out. - but shortly after.... players ( usually those on the receiving end tha consider "guns" to be in RP and missiles to be "bad" called for a nerf )
players WILL spot any tiny bit of potential a weapon has. and they will use it - against other players - who in turn will use it against them again.
thats what makes such concepts very hard. - especially when human nature very often wants to make something different, when it really wants to make something better.
when variety is created ... start out with ALL stats below the best available. you can still raise them - that is easier than lowering them.... players, no matter who ... are very reluctant to let go - and they will find many arguments not to.
so when you make an ammo based torp variety of a torp mount - take the nova torp, and make EVERY stat worse! - think clearly about what you want. - when even ONE stat is to be better - at least TWO other stats must be worse to keep at least a bit of balance.
so when you say - a nova is doing 100.000 damage - and we want to make it a really tough one - lets boast the damage to 200.000. - but in turn, do two things. - quad the price on each torp to 40.000 ( 70x40k = 2.100.000 $ ) and increase the energy so even 58k bombers cannot fire 2 at once. - and that would be very merciful to only increase the price of the ammo.
Quote:so i might suggest to add a gun that does 10.000 damage at a projectile speed of 2000 ( sniper ) and a range of 1500 - taking like 80% of a VHF energy - and a refire rate of 1 / minute.
looks balanced? - i don t think so - the consequence is that it can very easily take out a lower armoured ship in one hit - some might say "no skill weapon" - others will point at the massive disadvantages of the extremely low refire rate and the huge energy need.
Well, for one, even 10,000 damage, which is nothing what I suggested, would not be killing anything "in one hit".
All the same, there's nothing wrong with advantages and disadvantages and the things that players will do or say, as long as the weapon isn't broken. There are ways to balance everything, and while it may be difficult, or may even cause trouble, it's painfully close minded to shun all new ideas for that fact.
In ten years, will there still only be the Super Nova, Nova, Mini Razor, Cruise Disruptor, Sunslayer, and Starkiller? Growth is good, even if it has its bumps. We don't have to create a better weapon to make that change; we only need to make a different weapon.
you do remember the factionized supernovas? - and we also have other ( not public ) weapons discussions. - and there simply is a tendency to come up with something "better" instead of something different.
most things start out with something different - and gravitate to better. - one person likes sniping - he ll suggest a sniper weapon. - another person likes massive damage, so he ll suggest massive damage. - the disadvantages they also suggest are often not enough to make up for it.
in the end, they are customized weapons for the one that made the weapon. - on the one hand, it would be best if someone made a weapon that did not play freelancer at all... on the other hand, it would be silly, cause someone that doesn t play the game has no idea about it.
observe:
Hull Damage - 123 000
Shield Damage - 61 500
Range - 2300m
Energy Usage - 25 000
Projectile Speed - 350 m/s
this is from the SN thread ( they are not being included before someone asks ) - thats how advantages and disadvantages were done. - these are 3 versions of 3 different factions for a factionized supernova. - the differences are great... and.... is it balanced?
it started out as a very good idea. - and once biased, lobbyism and demands kick in - you get this.
and THAT is why i m always skeptical about "new ideas", not cause i don t like them, but cause they can so easily turn out to become personal projects to get what one wants.
Well, one person isn't really putting the weapon in, is he?
Just for reference, I don't really have a liking for "sniping", but I thought it might be an interesting idea. But whether that is biased or not, it all comes down to the dev team balancing said weapon.
And like I said, perhaps a mistake will be made in the process, but I hardly think that reason to never think out of the box.
http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?sh...&hl=CD+slot
pic on last page, all my ideas on variable torp slot stuff.
crappy images, but i thought being able to put stuff on CD slots is kinda handy, use the mine explosion effects
i totally agree there should be more different torps like:
*EMP
*faster torps
*bigger shockwaves
*faster refire
i don't like the captorp idea, caps are powerfull enough
another idea: missles with 2:00/ 3:03 refire, little homing,smaller damage and 120 ammo
if idea of snacs on caps scare you too much (yea it sux) just for our "torpedos" dont use torp slot but standard missile slot;)you cant mount snac into misile slot.