Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zephris
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:30:00 -
[1]
In advance: If you simply going to say no without providing a reason, waste your breath elsewhere.
A number of people think railguns are problematic but did not know where to start with a solution. Here I present a relatively simple way to fix them.
The goal is making railguns useful in some situations without making them overpowered in others, in the other word, creating a niche for the weapon.
The idea is based on how railguns work. Railguns do not defeat targets by ripping up / destroying their armor. They are armor piercing weapons - they leave a tiny hole on the target and turn the inside into mush like this:
so here is the solution - x% of railguns' damage to bypass armor. simply put, if a target have shields, then all of a railgun's DPS is taken by the shield, if the target have no shield, then (1-x)% applies to armor, x% applies to hull, if the target run out of hull before they run out of armor, they still die. The precise value of x is determined by testing.
Here is some examples. For simplicity same, say that pulse laser does 1000 DPS, railguns does 500, and x is 40 percent (.4).
Hypothetical target #1 Have 5K effective shield, 10K effective armor, and 10K effective hull The laser take 5 seconds to go through shield, 10 seconds through armor and and 25 seconds total to kill Railgun take 10 seconds to go through shield (100% DPS to shield), then does 200 per second to hull and 300 to armor. it will chew through armor in 33 seconds, at which point there is 3333 hull remaining. overall the kill take 50 seconds.
Hypothetical target number 2 have 5K shield and 10K hull, but 100K armor. (I am looking at you, plated abandon) the laser takes 115 second so complete the kill. Railgun will again take 10 seconds to kill the shield. then apply 200 DPS to hull per second. and kills in 60 seconds.
Hypothetical target number 3 have5K shield, 10K hull, 10K armor, but armor tanks 500 DPS the laser will take 5 sec to kill the shield, then effectively do 500DPS for the remainder of the test. this takes the laser 45 seconds. The railgun will take 10 seconds to go through the shield, then 200DPS to hull each second for 50 seconds, and the kill take 60 seconds.
TL/DL version: Make railgun a specific anti-armor weapon.
Consequences ? In pvp it'd be useful against heavily armored targets. Since sniper fits are not tanked, railguns would not be any more effective then they are now. In Pve regular rats should always run out armor first, therefore railguns would only be good for bosses. The niche ? make the railgun the weapon used to kill things that just. won't. die.
Thanks for reading.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 22:27:00 -
[2]
An idea proposed by many people, and just as stupid every time. It's impossible to balance.
|
Frank Jewett
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 22:29:00 -
[3]
or it's impossible not to post random negative comment with no good reason.
|
kralz
Gallente Debitum Naturae Northern Associates.
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 03:49:00 -
[4]
i actually agree...this would be impossible to balance. gallente being able to chop into hull with no worry of armor is fail. every one with either rage quit or retrain to rails.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 03:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: kralz i actually agree...this would be impossible to balance. gallente being able to chop into hull with no worry of armor is fail. every one with either rage quit or retrain to rails.
Not really. Since not much dmg seeps down to hull, it just means people will fit a hull rep that no one in their right mind currently use, thus slightly gimping their fit. So gimpy to begin with that it doesn't need balancing at all, rather than "impossible to balance." It'll end up as an annoyance. So not supported, annoyances are annoying.
|
Zephris
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 13:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: kralz i actually agree...this would be impossible to balance. gallente being able to chop into hull with no worry of armor is fail. every one with either rage quit or retrain to rails.
I already did the calculation, the changed weapon would only kill extremely buffered armor tankers faster. Can any of you say WHY it's impossible to balance ?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 14:22:00 -
[7]
Because in all the situations where you aren't shooting at heavily armour-tanked ship, Rails aren't fixed. And when you are, you'd be stupid to use anything but rails. This isn't sensible.
|
Zephris
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:02:00 -
[8]
Isn't every weapon provide significant advantages in situations where it's designed to be used? By your argument, all weapons should be identical so none of them would provide an advantage against specific targets.
It's like saying missiles are impossible to balance because they are weak against everything that doesn't use MWD but are THE weapons to use against targets with active MWD.
Then why have different weapons to start with ? That's even less sensible.
|
Nisshoku
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:14:00 -
[9]
yeah, this would add some personality to the weapon types.
and taking out an active tank without neuts would now be possible.
and just why would this be impossible to balance? smells like you just don't know how you would adapt to the change. |
Nisshoku
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 15:19:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gypsio III Because in all the situations where you aren't shooting at heavily armour-tanked ship, Rails aren't fixed. And when you are, you'd be stupid to use anything but rails. This isn't sensible.
I lol'ed. Lets remove nano tanks and blasters because: blaster-nano-tank against tripple webber paladin doesn't work very well. |
|
Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 17:46:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Ninetails o''Cat on 14/01/2011 17:47:24
Originally by: Nisshoku
Originally by: Gypsio III Because in all the situations where you aren't shooting at heavily armour-tanked ship, Rails aren't fixed. And when you are, you'd be stupid to use anything but rails. This isn't sensible.
I lol'ed. Lets remove nano tanks and blasters because: blaster-nano-tank against tripple webber paladin doesn't work very well.
Gypsio III is right, because no other turret system relies on a totally new mechanic to make itself work - They have upsides and downsides but they all work within the same frameworks. If rails are so terrible that you think the only way to make them work is reprogram the game code* around them, I'd rather just have a pretty massive DPS boost**.
Also, have you realised how much this will skew the game in favour of shield tanks? There is no reason why all the armor tanking ships in the game should be screwn over just because people believe a straight DPS boost (for example) is unimaginative or unrealistic. Unless you intend, of course, to make lasers ignore shields, or something - at which point we are merely back to where we started in terms of power and projectiles are left behind.
* I am presuming that CCP would need to tinker with the game code to get railguns to work in this manner
** Or similar
EDIT: You are aware that the weapons rails should be balanced against are not pulse lasers? Beam lasers and artillery hardly have the 100%+ DPS bonus you seem to have used in your calculations.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 18:07:00 -
[12]
Why a bias towards shields? Why not have railgun dps bypass both shield and armor?
|
Zephris
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 19:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat Edited by: Ninetails o''Cat on 14/01/2011 17:47:24
Originally by: Nisshoku
Originally by: Gypsio III Because in all the situations where you aren't shooting at heavily armour-tanked ship, Rails aren't fixed. And when you are, you'd be stupid to use anything but rails. This isn't sensible.
I lol'ed. Lets remove nano tanks and blasters because: blaster-nano-tank against tripple webber paladin doesn't work very well.
Gypsio III is right, because no other turret system relies on a totally new mechanic to make itself work - They have upsides and downsides but they all work within the same frameworks. If rails are so terrible that you think the only way to make them work is reprogram the game code* around them, I'd rather just have a pretty massive DPS boost**.
Also, have you realised how much this will skew the game in favour of shield tanks? There is no reason why all the armor tanking ships in the game should be screwn over just because people believe a straight DPS boost (for example) is unimaginative or unrealistic. Unless you intend, of course, to make lasers ignore shields, or something - at which point we are merely back to where we started in terms of power and projectiles are left behind.
* I am presuming that CCP would need to tinker with the game code to get railguns to work in this manner
** Or similar
EDIT: You are aware that the weapons rails should be balanced against are not pulse lasers? Beam lasers and artillery hardly have the 100%+ DPS bonus you seem to have used in your calculations.
This mechanic already exist. if you do not have tactical shield manipulation and receive a large amount of damage, some of it will apply to armor if your shield is lower then 25%. The proposal only require another condition for this to occur for armor. Massive DPS boost is fine. However, it's harder to balance that because DPS makes a weapon better at everything, not just at certain things. The actual number does not matter, the base damage can always be adjusted to make it work. That is a part of balancing.
|
Zephris
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 19:11:00 -
[14]
Originally by: X Gallentius Why a bias towards shields? Why not have railgun dps bypass both shield and armor?
That works too.
|
Nisshoku
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 21:00:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Zephris
Originally by: X Gallentius Why a bias towards shields? Why not have railgun dps bypass both shield and armor?
That works too.
I had assumed this would be the case. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |