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

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Missile changes

#41
(2018-11-14, 12:52 PM)draba Wrote:
(2018-11-14, 09:54 AM)harnas1977 Wrote: I'd be intrigued to test these changes ones they are out.
Could I ask for staggered fire control to be added to the missile panel (rather than changing values on the block via "Q") and increasing max time to 5s?

Max time was already increased to 5 sec, 0.5 was definitely too low with the new mechanics as stagger overhead punished small systems hard.
If you are willing to use continuous mode LWC firerate limit is the same as staggering.

Nick prefers keeping the block building mechanics, not everything being a slider.
I think stagger blocks do not matter that much but are a slight annoyance on small 2 axis turrets, will ask him.

Ok, but I am suggesting to use only single stagger to get to that 5 sec. This could be useful for small setups such as flares and 2-axis anti-missiles and such like.
Actually tried LWC when preparing for SSS-4, but it didn't work back then, likely it was not a part of stable release.
primum non nocere
___________________________________
my tournaments:
★★★ Sea Encounters - Battleships! ★★★
★★★ Sea Encounters - Light Cruisers ★★★
Reply

#42
(2018-11-14, 03:50 PM)harnas1977 Wrote: Ok, but I am suggesting to use only single stagger to get to that 5 sec. This could be useful for small setups such as flares and 2-axis anti-missiles and such like.

That's what the current version is, a single stagger addon can go up to 5 sec.
They still stack but that will probably not matter much.
Reply

#43
(2018-11-14, 04:51 PM)draba Wrote:
(2018-11-14, 03:50 PM)harnas1977 Wrote: Ok, but I am suggesting to use only single stagger to get to that 5 sec. This could be useful for small setups such as flares and 2-axis anti-missiles and such like.

That's what the current version is, a single stagger addon can go up to 5 sec.
They still stack but that will probably not matter much.

Any chance we can get the Friend/foe ID block removed to? totally irrelevant on larger builds, but as with the stagger blocks annoying and ugly on small turrets.  (for the same reason, more connections for the controller is an awesome change!)

Regarding the single compensation component for the new system: The maximum cap is far to low and the reduction in missile signal requirement is too harsh.  You have to offer players tangible benefits to sacrifice a whole warhead, especially since this thing will be obscenely expensive to use on large missiles.  right now the proposed system looks like this:
-A significant cut to range, maneuverability, or damage in order to mount this compensator that disproportionately impacts shorter and larger missiles
-A 10% (maybe higher, maybe not) cut to damage due to failed locks (approaching 100% against already small targets and with some off-bore launch systems)
-Say 50% damage cut from enemy counter measures (potentially much more depending on how buoys work)

And the only benefits are
-10% decrease in the effectiveness of enemy countermeasures
-It works on all potential countermeasures

it appears (assuming the percentages add/subtract) that this module will result in an extra 1-in-10 missile hitting, but the trade-off is easily a 25% damage/range/maneuverabilty reduction across the whole volley regardless of the presence of countermeasures. That 'benefit' doesn't even pay out in the presence of countermeasures, never mind paying out if there are none. and if the 10% decrease works like normal where say a 50% effective decoy is reduced by 10% to become a 45% effective decoy then this module is outright never worth the cost except to counter ECM so heavy that missiles themselves are the wrong weapon.

A better system, i'd say would be a flat reduction in missile strength that increases with each block added.  For example
-25% decoy reduction per small compensator added
-50% decoy reduction per medium compensator added
-100% decoy reduction for a large compensator
(where the % reduction is a percentage of the decoy rating. So that a 50% effective enemy decoy would become a 37.5% effective decoy after 1 small compensator)
With this kind of system there is a clear cost/benefit: Large bonuses to counter a moderate/large initial investment + the large bonuses of the countermeasure they combat.

The very fact that the player has to take a significant, up-front disadvantage (trading a warhead, fuel, or fins) to gain a comparatively poor advantage means this block will rarely be used unless new decoys are so oppressive that the system is broken, much like shields and disruptors.  On large missiles especially It becomes more cost effective under current pricing to Use LUA once the guidance block count goes to 3, which is module would do.  under the new pricing (1000/lua tranciever) it's more cost effective to use LUA regardless as it's cheaper to use the all-in-one LUA package than 1600-2400 in guidance blocks (sensor, 1-2 modules).

I'm more interested in how bouys are going to work.  Currently, a major-fair trade of decoy's is they can be destroyed and they still have to be mounted on the vehicle.   That's still a relatively fair engagement.  Watching all missiles on the map follow a single flare/ bouy into space for the entire battle is beyond broken.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#44
(2018-12-06, 07:36 PM)Lincrono Wrote: Any chance we can get the Friend/foe ID block removed to? totally irrelevant on larger builds, but as with the stagger blocks annoying and ugly on small turrets.

Wanted to do that initially but
1. Shooting yourself in the face is hilarious
2. There are too many mandatory components on missiles already

For now I reduced its cost and IFF slightly bumps detection thresholds(10-20%, can't decide)

(2018-12-06, 07:36 PM)Lincrono Wrote: ...

Signal processor reduces flare/target simulator strengths TO 10%, not by 10%. Can't be stacked(no need anyway).
Very hard to attach numbers to it, in practice means going from a big portion of missiles lost to a very small one.
Missiles generally still work decently well without, but are really wasteful against strong decoys and small targets.

Short missiles can be direct fire or a gamble on no decoys.
Angle matters a lot so small fighters/2 axis turrets should be a bit better than they are now(beyond needing less fins already).
Started with 85/87.5/90% reduction for S/M/L, after shooting a bit I don't think it's necessary.
Numbers aren't final, only a guess from me playing against myself.
Reply

#45
(2018-12-07, 10:11 AM)draba Wrote:
(2018-12-06, 07:36 PM)Lincrono Wrote: Any chance we can get the Friend/foe ID block removed to? totally irrelevant on larger builds, but as with the stagger blocks annoying and ugly on small turrets.

Wanted to do that initially but
1. Shooting yourself in the face is hilarious
2. There are too many mandatory components on missiles already

For now I reduced its cost and IFF slightly bumps detection thresholds(10-20%, can't decide)

(2018-12-06, 07:36 PM)Lincrono Wrote: ...

Signal processor reduces flare/target simulator strengths TO 10%, not by 10%. Can't be stacked(no need anyway).
Very hard to attach numbers to it, in practice means going from a big portion of missiles lost to a very small one.
Missiles generally still work decently well without, but are really wasteful against strong decoys and small targets.

Short missiles can be direct fire or a gamble on no decoys.
Angle matters a lot so small fighters/2 axis turrets should be a bit better than they are now(beyond needing less fins already).
Started with 85/87.5/90% reduction for S/M/L, after shooting a bit I don't think it's necessary.
Numbers aren't final, only a guess from me playing against myself.

LMAO!  yeah that's a pretty big difference i don't know, it still reads like an odd phrasing of a normal de-buff to me.  Yeah in that case having a bit higher lock threshold wouldn't bet too bad, though I think a better solution is that rather than a straight cap to 10% allow for a stronger interplay.  otherwise what we get is the following: 
-decoy counter vanilla missiles
-processor missiles invalidate decoys
it's a rather bland dichotomy and hews very similarly to other systems where a big complaint is required features. Even against processors, ECM should have a certain strength proportional to it's investment and nominal strength.  There should be a large decrease, because just having the processor cut's missile performance: the goal of decoys. However, there should still be a noticeable difference between Strong and weak ECM even in the presence of processors.
-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)