Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
2018-07-13, 07:30 PM
Post: #21
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
A linear scaling for gauges would be the first step, but that breaks every gun designed around gauges vs autoloaders. Perhaps changing the complexity modifier to be closer to linear could also help. Additionally, reducing the bonus from length, but that would just encourage belt blasters/stubby machineguns.

(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
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-07-14, 03:29 AM
Post: #22
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
I agree about scaling down advanced cannon's fire rates. Everyone says they're the most OP gun system, but it's only at high gauges because the cooling lets you fire super high rpm 500mm guns, which will obviously do a lot of damage. Lower gauges, even just at 250mm, just aren't as effective because they can't put out enough damage - partly due to the way explosive damage scales. Using 1 HE explosive gives 100mm=129dmg, 250mm=773dmg, 500mm=2985dmg; so it would take over 23 100mm shots, or around 4 250mm shots to have the same output as 1 500mm, not to mention gauge coolers being more effective the more you have, making it more efficient to make bigger cannons fire faster. Kinetic rounds can do fair damage, but are heavily countered by shields (separate issue).
I suggest putting a more realistic scaling on AP gun cool down based on gauge sizes so that you can't make 500mm gatling guns quite so easily, and at the same time boost the damage of the lower gauge guns a bit so that they are actually feasible.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-07-14, 04:36 AM (This post was last modified: 2018-07-14 04:47 AM by DraWay.)
Post: #23
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
Can I chirp here?
Namely on damage boost.
Please. Do not boost damage even more.
Nerf evasion and shields instead.
More damage you add, more useless becomes everything hittable, more inevitable becomes building unhittable full shielded UFO's, more favour comes to spamguns over hard hitters and you'll want to boost damage even more again.

On CRAMs, maybe increase their lower gauge limit and damage scaling, to truly make their hits dreadful at least, and catastrophic at most. And do something with 500mm gatlings for them to be weaker damage-wise than minimal CRAM.
That functionality wise, but honestly i'm not sure that CRAMs and aps even could be balanced around both systems being cannons.
CRAMs could be changed into indirect fire, time/distance fuse driven weapon, making bombs, mortars, and such, slow high AoE devastators, that hard to achieve direct hit, but do not need direct hits to do damage, and can chip chunks from multiple targets at once. Giga-flak you can say.
(for this make the fuse itself built-in to cram shell with some default non-optimal settings, and need fuse box only for altering them)
...indirect fire? Simplest "imitation" is force "mortars" always use 45deg elevation and vary shell speed for distance, until speed reaches preset lower limit, after which go back to direct aim. And we don't want true mortars simply because virtually all targets in game are mobile, and high arcing shots have ridiculous flight time.

Makes things.
magic cheese must burn?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-07-14, 04:33 PM
Post: #24
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
I'd say, buff HE a bit for small calibers, for ACC, but other than that reduce rate of fire in some way.

And DESTROY FUCKN SHIELDS, until shields are properly balanced, nothing but missiles can be properly balanced...

There is always a weak-spot if you search Hard enough.

If you fire enough AP at that shield, at some point you're going to come through.

There is no "best" I wouldn't even say there is anything universally good, Good is subjective, I find everything bad even if it's in theory good against this or that.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 08:14 PM by temeter.)
Post: #25
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
Honestly, I'm a bit confused at a lot of the suggestions here. If we got a problem, then it is likely that CRAMs are not very good; any vehicle with good mobility is almost impossible to hit, LAMS are a very straightforward counter, and even lasers and missiles are more reliable weaponry. Their seemingly high EXP damage is pretty bad versus any layered armor.

So why are so many people here speaking about redesigning APS as an answer, which currently are probably the most interesting and finalized system in the game? Sure you can make super powerful 500mm super rapid firing turrets, but you need a giant turret base that is as expensive as it is expansive. Might as well launch 200 missile at once or a death laser that kills anything in seconds. As to why 250mm is so much worse than 500m, that is because the latter diameter has 4 times the surface area - so yes, having 4 time the HE damage is perfectly legit. So please stop talking about making it linear. If miniguns are worse than same size 500mm cannons is another discussion, more about internal balance of APS (and usually those miniguns are a lot more compact than large APS cannons). And the interplay with shields... well, screw shields, they're a bit broken right now.


More on topic, I can't really see how you'd ever truly fix CRAM, if "fixing" means to make it a versatile, all around high end weapon system like APS, lasers or missiles are. A slow artillery gun is never going to work versus mobile opponents. Guided projectiles and magnets are IMO just a lame bandaid, won't really fix the issue, and even increasing the speed to 200m/s doesn't fix the issue.

But I don't think that is necessary. CRAM can be pretty fun; they won't win tournaments, but I think they can work out as limited purpose artillery gun, and OP did pretty much nail both the issue and solution currently: Pricing.

IMO the best way to go about with CRAM is to make them more of the thing that they seem to be designed as: A low tech, primitive cannon with massive, slow shells. AKA, don't just make them inexpensive, but make them really cheap. Not much to worry, they'll still take up lots of space on a ship, but if you could cheaply spam them on a large vehicle, or make cheap cannonboats with massive cram cannons, they could at least find some neat niche where they can have a fun, if limited existence.
Basically the thing the Onxy Watch does right now. I love those designs, and would love to got some motivation to make cheap CRAM boats. But the pricing just kills them.

Sure they might use some limited Damage/Speed buff (also, mb recoil/speed buff if not mounted on turret?), but I find it hard to see any other solution for CRAMs that wouldn't completely change their nature, or turn them into an APS clone. But I'm not sure they really need a convoluted solution to be fixed. They're fun, and that's sometimes worth a lot in a PVE game too. Just make them cheap, fun early games weapons that scale to ridiculous sizes.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 08:19 PM
Post: #26
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
So many are talking about APS redesign, because APS are OP and as soon as the shield rebalance comes, APS has to be rebalanced aswell

There is always a weak-spot if you search Hard enough.

If you fire enough AP at that shield, at some point you're going to come through.

There is no "best" I wouldn't even say there is anything universally good, Good is subjective, I find everything bad even if it's in theory good against this or that.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 09:12 PM
Post: #27
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
I quite like what temeter is saying. Make it dirt cheap and the fact that it's a pretty terrible weapon won't be so bad anymore; big ships could spam a ton of them without breaking the bank. As temeter says, they would get a niche which could then be balanced around; and it would be interesting and unique to have a weapon system which is strictly worse for a given volume, but can make up for that by being extremely cheap.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 11:11 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:14 PM by temeter.)
Post: #28
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
(Yesterday 08:19 PM)Skyer Wrote:  So many are talking about APS redesign, because APS are OP and as soon as the shield rebalance comes, APS has to be rebalanced aswell

That might well be, when the shield balancing happens.

But that's not really for now, and the issues of CRAM, which make it inferior to APS, are just far more deeply embedded. And the cost is faaaaaaaar too high either way, which was mostly OPs point.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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