Poll: What do you think about the suggestion?
Good idea
Bad idea
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
2017-08-07, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-08-07 11:15 AM by draba.)
Post: #1
APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
Right now reload time scales with DIAMETER^1.5, most damage with DIAMETER^1.95.
This means that a 100mm shell will do ~48% the DPS of a 500mm one.
While smaller calibers have many advantages I don't think those justify this big a gap in damage done.
IMO the damage exponent could be decreased to ~1.6, so 100mm would do ~85% the DPS of 500mm.
Base could stay the same so >200mm is nerfed/<200mm buffed, or brought up so 500mm is the same and everything else comes up a bit.

A breakdown of the effect on damage types, and why I think the change would be fine with them:
  • Kinetic: with new armor and stacking rules lower calibers can't penetrate strong armor and with the low base damage ricochet a lot.
    Higher calibers also get a slight velocity(so damage/AP) buff on top of higher base damage, even if low cal did the same DPS there is a reason to go higher.
  • HE: The smaller radius is a big drawback, against strong armor there is a high chance that the explosion runs out before using the full damage pool.
    Even 500mm doesn't have the max possible damage in the explosion radius limit with a single warhead.
  • HESH: no fragments if spalling metric < armor metric, the extra frag spawns also have a higher chance of running out this way
  • HEAT: low cal is now practically useless, even with the 1.6 change it'd be a gamble against stronger armor and no chance of getting through 1m air
  • EMP: EMP in general is useless and doubly so for low calibers where the flat reduction from wood/stone is more noticeable. Would need to keep an eye on disruptors though.

Need to mention the advantages of smaller calibers, to explain only going for 1.6 instead of parity:
  • LAMS is virtually useless against small shells, this is the big one!
  • need slightly less space, much shorter barrels
  • more consistent hits, little overkill on them
  • can use more modules(mixed payloads scale slightly better than reload time)
  • can fit more loaders in the same space(though most of the gain is lost to complexity/more inputs and not getting large loader bonus)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-07, 11:40 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-08-07 11:41 AM by Tyr3n.)
Post: #2
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
I would probably even get closer and balance the weaponry out, so bigger cannons trade rof for alpha, DPS being close to the same with same setup.

Bigger cannons still inherit their advantage in penetration, small cannons save space.

(2018-03-12 05:51 AM)Chunkblaster Wrote:  @Lord O' Talons What Anime is that?

(2018-03-12 01:22 PM)Lord O Talons Wrote:  BM effects and docking stations.

---lolwhat Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-07, 11:53 AM
Post: #3
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
I agree with you on the subject of low gauge guns dealing too little damage, but I rather have the solution aiming to penalize high RoF high gauge guns.

Both low and high gauge guns have their own place in FtD, but I've always felt it's a bit idiotic that making a high gauge (300+ mm) gun spewing 120 RPM is almost easier than making a low gauge gun do the same (with regards to size, of course).
Instead of coolers having an exponential effect on coolingtime, it should rather be the other way round. Result: High RoF low calibre guns, low RoF high gauge guns.
That low calibre guns have a much higher damage penalty is negatable that way.
If there is a ammo type which deserves a boost at low gauge it'd be FLAK.

Procrastination level is over 9000
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-07, 11:53 AM
Post: #4
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
I'm not sure that smaller gauges takes less space.
You need an autoloader and a clip, which are scaled with the length of the shell.
But you also need one (or preferably more) feeder, which is always the same size.
So, with 8m autoloaders, the volume used by the feeders is a lot smaller than with 1m autoloaders, which means that in that case you've lost less volume.

That said, the small gauge shells are maybe a little underpowered.
But I think that I wouldn't go as far as 1.6, because the fact that smaller shells can avoid LAMS is a huge advantage.
When I was finishing the Topaz, it consistently lost to the Harbinger because the Harbinger used shells too small for my LAMS settings. When I change my LAMS settings to hit those smaller shells, then the Topaz won consistently.
That means that LAMS can save a ship and reverse the course of a battle.

In addition, with the new upcoming shields, the sabot shells will re-gain some interest, and associated with small gauge, sabot can be devastating.


As a conclusion, I think that going for 60-65% of the DPS of a 500mm shell would probably be better.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-07, 11:54 AM
Post: #5
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
(2017-08-07 11:40 AM)Tyr3n Wrote:  I would probably even get closer and balance the weaponry out, so bigger cannons trade rof for alpha, DPS being close to the same with same setup.

Bigger cannons still inherit their advantage in penetration, small cannons save space.

High calibers were buffed when sabot was THE shell and armor was useless(a hole is a hole both at 200mm and 500).
With the changes since then even parity could be fine.

The 2 main reasons I didn't propose constant DPS across all calibers:
- LAMS(especially continuous) is really, really good against high caliber APS
- low calibers aren't getting the same setup, they will probably have an extra module or two and a slightly higher adjusted firerate than an equal space 500mm
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-07, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 2017-08-07 01:27 PM by draba.)
Post: #6
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
(2017-08-07 11:53 AM)Eagle Wrote:  I agree with you on the subject of low gauge guns dealing too little damage, but I rather have the solution aiming to penalize high RoF high gauge guns.

Both low and high gauge guns have their own place in FtD, but I've always felt it's a bit idiotic that making a high gauge (300+ mm) gun spewing 120 RPM is almost easier than making a low gauge gun do the same (with regards to size, of course).
Instead of coolers having an exponential effect on coolingtime, it should rather be the other way round. Result: High RoF low calibre guns, low RoF high gauge guns.

I think 500mm is in a nice place, optimal firerate is ~10-20 RPM before you are better off splitting it up(beltfed 300+ is silly though).
Linear coolers were planned for 2.0 and I think they'd be nice. Nick shot them down so they aren't happening.

(2017-08-07 11:53 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  I'm not sure that smaller gauges takes less space.
You need an autoloader and a clip, which are scaled with the length of the shell.

With the exact same setup(simply limiting gauge with 8m loaders) firerate will increase to match the ratio between the shell loading times, that's the worst case.
At lower calibers you can add more barrels and remove some coolers.
Loading modifier scales with the 2nd root of loader length, complexity penalty with the 4th root of count so in some setups you can split up the loaders and gain some total power.
As an example, if you have 8m + 2 not fully utilised inputs you can get 2x4m, 1 inputs each instead(or dick around trying to fit 2ms with more total inputs).

(2017-08-07 11:53 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  That said, the small gauge shells are maybe a little underpowered.
But I think that I wouldn't go as far as 1.6, because the fact that smaller shells can avoid LAMS is a huge advantage.

Yep, LAMS is a huge advantage.
That said, small shells also have some big drawbacks.

With the armor changes I really wouldn't worry about small sabot, without rails it'll ricochet a ton against stacked metal or anything involving HA.
Meanwhile large shells just plow through the outermost layer no questions asked, no ricochets unless the angle is really, really bad(+pure kinetic is hard to get with LAMS).

Sameish with HE, the low radius makes it much worse than the numbers imply(go ask explosive PACs about their 5m Smile ).

Small disruptors might be a problem, but could just leave EMP exponent alone.
Plain EMP is useless either way so nothing of value is lost.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-08, 02:21 AM
Post: #7
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
I just want to qualify my 'it's a good idea' I think it's kinda silly to start buffing shells to do more damage after a patch solely intended to make armor meaningful.

However, I find the current state of "if it's too small (which can mean it's below cruiser weight) it does 0 damage" stupid silly. in particular the new bounce calculation is really getting me down. It's depressing trying to build a frigate/destroyer weapon and getting this:

-Kinetic shells bounce off the shields or armor at a rate of 90%+
-Heat can't get the metric to pen AT ALL
-HESH can't the the metric to pen AT ALL
-Hollow, no disgusting bounce but it doesn't pen shields
-Frag, 90%+ frags bounce off 1m steel
-EMP, bounce off shields, bounce off armor if fused, low dmg
-HE, fuse or bounce

Missiles are out due to frag (torps still healthy)

CRAMs . . . are any small CRAMs good? also . . . bouncing all but 1-2 bulwark broadsides with 2m steel was fun the first time or two and just depressingly sad for each later battle.

-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-08, 07:15 AM
Post: #8
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
Making damage scale with gauge^1.95 makes reasonable sense to begin with.. It's scaling almost with the cross-section area of the shell. Honestly I'm surprised it's not closer to gauge^3. (A shell module of gauge N with no length limitation will have cross section of π(N/2)² = (π/4)N², and will therefore have a total volume of (π/4)N²N = (π/4)N³.)
If something like this were to happen, it should increase the exponent to the reload timing scale instead of decreasing the exponent to the damage scale.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-08, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-08-08 09:44 AM by draba.)
Post: #9
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
(2017-08-08 02:21 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  I just want to qualify my 'it's a good idea' I think it's kinda silly to start buffing shells to do more damage after a patch solely intended to make armor meaningful.

However, I find the current state of "if it's too small (which can mean it's below cruiser weight) it does 0 damage" stupid silly. in particular the new bounce calculation is really getting me down. It's depressing trying to build a frigate/destroyer weapon and getting this:

To clarify, the last thing I want is an APS buff(ok, aside from better aim) Smile
The best caliber(500mm) would stay the same or be nerfed a bit.

If I had to put a number on how well 100mm does, with 48% nominal DPS of 500mm:
  • Kinetic is <30%. It also gets a hit from velocity, +is mostly damaging the outer armor layer and also gets an angle-based reduction.
  • HE is <30%. Can't check but it will have trouble doing even its nominal damage with that radius.
  • HEAT/HESH/EMP are useless

(2017-08-08 07:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  If something like this were to happen, it should increase the exponent to the reload timing scale instead of decreasing the exponent to the damage scale.

I generally hate it when realism is brought up in balance discussions but increasing high-gauge load/cooling times could also work.
LAMS is already pretty nasty so shell health would need a decent bump.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-08-08, 09:45 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-08-08 09:46 AM by Tyr3n.)
Post: #10
RE: APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP
@Gladyon: i mean you save quite literally space, given the performance per time is equal. A small DPS cannon needs a smaller barbette and less deck space than an equally potent 500mm derp gun.

@Lincrono: I can:t complain about the performance of most of my shells, 200m HESH can mess up Alcazars, 150mm Sabot plows through 2 layers of sabot and so on and so forth...
HEAT is way less over the top than before, frag did only need a few adjustments to be viable again.

However, the times where my main batteries shredder a Bulwark in 30 seconds are over, hopefully.

Nevertheless, I am torn apart between my inner replicant and a balance friend...

Theoretically, a shell of a destroyer or light cruiser (reasonably designed after "historic"-ish designs) shouldn't even leave dent in the armor belt of a battleship. That was the historic dude...the balancer doesn't see a problem fulfilling this wish and at the same time giving the destroyer considerable firepower against soft targets (ultra light aircraft and such)...

(2018-03-12 05:51 AM)Chunkblaster Wrote:  @Lord O' Talons What Anime is that?

(2018-03-12 01:22 PM)Lord O Talons Wrote:  BM effects and docking stations.

---lolwhat Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)