Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 3 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Laser/LAMS rework (2.15)

#41
(2017-12-20, 03:33 AM)SynthTwo Wrote: This is sort of an unanticipated balance means, but it turns out that this mod actually makes APS spamguns really easily counterable.

All those tiny short shells are fodder for continuous lams, even 4Q just zaps most out of the sky.

Only did real stress tests with railguns around 800-12000 velocity, could you post some designs you use?
LAMS could be too good, might have to revert the storage cost reduction and set inaccuracy to ~0.1-ish.
Also thought about making damage falloff higher but with the improved target selection and current storage it wouldn't matter.

(2017-12-20, 09:38 AM)Normal69 Wrote: LAMS I've made just a passing bit of experiment, but it seems if you reduce full 90 degree firing angle (an option in Q), they become more accurate.
If they don't work like this, maybe they should.

Field of fire doesn't affect accuracy, and it definitely won't.
While it could be a nice touch LAMS is practically mandatory and I want optimal setups to be as painless to set up as possible.

(2017-12-20, 09:38 AM)Normal69 Wrote: I feels sad about smoke shells, as I used them for confusing enemy visual targeting.
Can you make paint shell parts? Covering enemies in shameful pink, while covering camera lenses?

APS smoke could make a return, I'm thinking about needing ~0.2 cubic meter volume of smoke payloads in a shell before they start to work(that'd be 2x500mm, 4x400mm, ...).
No beltfeeder cheese, but a massive pain to do and have to check the numbers so very low on the list.
Reply

#42
I am curious then what the LAMS field of fire setting is good for? I could make it worse? Thank you for the clarification.
From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73
MULTIPLAYER!

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Reply

#43
(2017-12-20, 10:43 AM)Normal69 Wrote: I am curious then what the LAMS field of fire setting is good for? I could make it worse? Thank you for the clarification.

LAMS doesn't check direct line of sight towards the target.
If your own vehicle is in the way it will simply shoot it, piddly damage but does waste the laser energy.
If the node is buried for some reason it could be better to use a reduced FoF.
Reply

#44
I play with a lot of mods so sorry but you will need Fuzed Nose, protectech, Willies Impractical Propulsion Emporium, and possibly my electric engine buff.



Anyway, my old LAMS was 36k power and not really that good for its cost. It was a 4Q system, and after installing the laser rework I had all this excess power so I refit to a more dense 0Q system. My tests were spawning this ship, spawning a thyr, and letting them shoot at one another, and initially no damage ever occurred to either party and thus provoked the refit from triple 230's to triple 500's.



The currently installed laser system is ~15k power, could definitely be scaled up but in order to do so would require some major remodeling I wasn't ready to do. It has troubles shooting down cram volleys (large troubles) but when it comes to APS it instapops them and missiles just take a second or two to pop too.


I also keep 100 points in scientist which basically doubles lams accuracy.


Attached Files
.blueprint   Summit Class.blueprint (Size: 565.51 KB / Downloads: 27)
Reply

#45
(2017-12-20, 10:43 AM)Normal69 Wrote: I am curious then what the LAMS field of fire setting is good for? I could make it worse? Thank you for the clarification.

Reducing field of view is to get certain LAMS nodes to make sure to cover a certain area or not fire on missed or bounced shells. Mostly only useful for LAMS that will always be facing your main target, so its shells and missiles are prioritized (always targeted with at least some of the system). Normally for turreted LAMS systems and forward-facing LAMS for FBTs.
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#46
The LWC fails to do anything but update at 5hz right now, and my attempts to rebuild and debug from your source aren't working. I don't know how to code and it keeps failing to build (code 1). Sad

EDIT: I had to change the post build path. derp. Gonna try some things to debug this.
Reply

#47
Updated to 2.12: with the base 40 Hz removed every GPP-related change.
Reply

#48
I'm a bit late to the party, but have you considered hosting a tournament centered around really stress testing the balance of your laser and missile mod? I have to say, it's a little jarring reading the changes at first but your stated goals in each are things I can agree with, and in practice the two seem to line up.

However, I think that really putting them through the wringer, would help to flesh them out and see if they're really hitting the mark while exposing any issues that remain or intended limitations people manage to build around.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#49
(2018-05-28, 02:43 AM)Lincrono Wrote: I'm a bit late to the party, but have you considered hosting a tournament centered around really stress testing the balance of your laser and missile mod? I have to say, it's a little jarring reading the changes at first but your stated goals in each are things I can agree with, and in practice the two seem to line up.

However, I think that really putting them through the wringer, would help to flesh them out and see if they're really hitting the mark while exposing any issues that remain or intended limitations people manage to build around.

Main problem is that the missile mod wasn't revisited for the laser numbers.
The big laser damage nerf and higher effective LAMS range finally makes things a bit more open, but didn't get around to do it.

That brings me to point 2: it'd take tons of time, do not have time/patience for FtD nowadays.
Will check back when updates with changes I'm interested in are out.
Reply

#50
(2018-05-28, 05:03 PM)draba Wrote:
(2018-05-28, 02:43 AM)Lincrono Wrote: I'm a bit late to the party, but have you considered hosting a tournament centered around really stress testing the balance of your laser and missile mod? I have to say, it's a little jarring reading the changes at first but your stated goals in each are things I can agree with, and in practice the two seem to line up.

However, I think that really putting them through the wringer, would help to flesh them out and see if they're really hitting the mark while exposing any issues that remain or intended limitations people manage to build around.

Main problem is that the missile mod wasn't revisited for the laser numbers.
The big laser damage nerf and higher effective LAMS range finally makes things a bit more open, but didn't get around to do it.

That brings me to point 2: it'd take tons of time, do not have time/patience for FtD nowadays.
Will check back when updates with changes I'm interested in are out.

Definitely feel you their man I've been in a bit of a holding pattern myself given the pace of changes.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)