Looking for feedback on aggregated Strike suggestions, and big thread is too crowded

[lwiggles]

10) Give the Clarion Heavy Laser Cannons. HLC's are the quintessential Strike weapon, and every Strike should have them. They would cement the Clarion as a great anti-minelayer ship, as well as giving it more capability to assault satellites that have turrets.

 

On behalf of a flyboy buddy who is preferred status. His suggestion is that this doesn't really give Clarion a role, and his recommends giving them BLC instead, providing them a clear role in clearing satts in dom and benefits in tdm as well.

 

Hope it helps

Edited June 3, 2015 by lwiggles

[Ramalina]

For Yallia:

 

Diagram, unfortunately not a particularly well drawn one.

 

Labeling for the diagram from left to right, cause my crappy free drawing program hates text insertion:

 

Pilot's eye

Blue dotted line: plane where firing arc circle is drawn (think of it as a window with a circle drawn on it to match the edge of the firing arc angle).

Brown Theta: Angle of the narrower (black) firing arc

Red vertical line: baseline range of the wider (red) firing arc)

Brown Theta 2: Angle of the wider (red) firing arc.

Black vertical line: baseline range of the narrower (black) firing arc

Red dashed vertical line: Wider firing arc with range capacitors

Black dashed line: Narrower firing arc with range capacitors.

 

The volume of space weapon fire can hit can be increased by increasing the range (longer cone), increasing the firing arc (wider cone), or both.

 

However, for any particular angle of firing arc, the circle where that cone intersects the blue reference plane does not change, because the range from the eye to that plane is fixed (and typically pretty short). That circle is the firing arc that shows up on your UI. So by looking at that circle you can tell if a target is within the right angular parameters for a shot. To tell if you can hit it, you also need the range text, because a target could be within the proper angles, but too far away to be in the cone that is swept by the weapon fire.

 

Notice that it's a straight line from the eye to the reference plane to the normal range to the enhanced range if you follow the outside edge of a firing arc. That's why the apparent size of the circle for a 24 degree arc remains the same whether the weapon range is 5 m or 50,000 m, despite the fact that the volume of the cone that defines the weapon envelope is much bigger for a max range of 50,000 m.

 

Part of the problem is that sometimes people are a bit sloppy in terms of specifying if they mean the firing arc circle drawn on the reference plane or the one the defines the max range of the volume of space that the weapon can potentially hit. It's possible that you all have the same understanding of the geometry, but just weren't being clear in labeling which circle you were referring to.

 

Forum software typically has very poor toolsets for creating diagrams, which makes discussing this sort of thing more complicated than it would be with more advanced technologies such as a piece of paper and a pencil.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Ramalina

[Delta_V]

I'm not saying it's not a cone, I'm saying your analogy didn't define the meaning of the cone base, firing arc's or tracking penalties. Therefore, the cylinder conveyed what you wanted to convey--at least my interpretation of it-- in what I thought was an easier, more colorful approach.

Be careful about your cone's though, I think you may have the same misconception as Delta_V about how they work in this game based on your comment about how the cone gets bigger with range--see below.

 

 

 

If weapon A and B have the same firing arc angle, and A has a smaller height, then the base must be smaller. You claim this is true in reality, then you lose me when you're saying it's not that way on the screen. I'm not sure why you're saying on the screen they will look the same, the viewer's perspective has not changed. The distance (range) change is real, your observation point is the same in both situations, therefore the base should appear smaller to the viewer.

 

Your statement about the height of the cone changing with range, and therefore it's volume and base diameter is a misconception I think nearly every player has in this game.

 

To clear up the misunderstanding a lot of players seem to have, let's do a test.

Hypothesis: Changing the range of a weapon does not change the length of the cone and therefore, cannot change the base diameter (the circle on the HUD). Does this make sense? Not really, if I change the height of the cone the base must mathematically change--correct. But this isn't true in GSF because the cone is define by the angle (that can change) and a universal cone height (never changes). The circle will not become any bigger if you pick a range capacitor or range upgrades in tiers--those upgrades are isolated from the cone geometry. To prove it let's use HLC as an example:

 

Situation A

HLC range =6300 meters

firing arc = 20 degrees

This gives a cone base diameter of 2200 meters

 

Situation B

HLC range =6900 meters

firing arc = 20 degrees

This gives a cone base diameter of 2433 meters

*Note that there's a difference between angle in a cone, and angle of a cone. The values in the game are angles in a cone.

The base diameter has increased by 10.6%

 

This should be noticeable by comparing screen shots:

Situation A: http://i.imgur.com/RTzVMYN.jpg

Situation B: http://i.imgur.com/91Va62z.jpg

The exact same line is used to gauge the diameter of the firing arc. As you can see, it has not changed.

 

This is because the game doesn't change the dimensions of the cone when range is increased. The firing volume is the same as before, but the shots now extend pass the base of the cone. This was probably done or else picking range upgrades would give an unfair advantage over the other options since you'd get a range increase and a firing arc increase.

 

Maybe people are wondering, "well maybe you can't see a ~10% difference?"

Let's test that:

Situation C

HLC range = 6300 meters

Improved kill zone = +2% degrees on firing arc

firing arc = 22 degrees

This gives a base diameter of 2448 meters. That's an increase of 11%--basically the same as our previous 10.6% example.

Here's the picture: http://i.imgur.com/iBtDYss.jpg

 

Notice the change using the same line used in the other two pictures. The player can clearly see a 10% difference in diameter. It's not an issue of perspective or anything else. People are correct in thinking about cones, but not in how they are changing with different component selection.

 

I mentioned the cone height was universal. Let's prove that with Ions and Quads. Both have the same firing arc (24 degrees), but quads have a range of 5000 meters whereas ions have only 4000 meters. Therefore, if the initial cone base was set off default range values, then quads should have a larger base. But this isn't true, as the below pictures show, they are exactly the same.

Ions: http://i.imgur.com/PTSjx6f.jpg

Quads: http://i.imgur.com/pnQ8TL4.jpg

All Firing arcs have unique angles, but are based on the same height. The game is designed so only an angle change will effect the diameter of the cone

 

If you were to actually model the cone, the base would get larger, but you only get to look at it from the very tip of the cone. Thus, as the height increases, the base moves away from you at the same time it is getting bigger, thus it appears the same size on your screen. Just like an object that is moving away from you, it appears to get smaller. In this case, the object is getting bigger at the same time as it is moving away from you, so it seems to stay the same size.

 

This is called being bored at work:

 

I went and modeled a cylinder in SolidWorks. This is a side view of a cylinder with a base of 2 and height of 3 (units were inches, but that doesn't matter, you could use kilometers and it wouldn't change anything), which has an angle of 33.7 degrees. When you put a camera right at the top of the cone (ok, actually 0.01 off, to keep it from pointing inside the model) it looks like this. The circle you see in this view represents the firing arc that would be displayed on your screen if a weapon had a firing arc of 16.85 degrees (IIRC, the firing arc angle is the angle from the centerline to the edge, which would be half the edge-to-edge angle).

 

Next, I doubled the height of the cone, so it now has a base of 4 and height of 6, but the angle is still 33.7 degrees. This is a side profile of the extended cone, with the additional volume colored red. If you look at it from the same camera view as the original, guess what - it looks exactly the same. Despite the base being twice as large, from the top of the cone, you cannot see any of the additional volume and the circle that you see appears to be the same.

 

edit: Ramalina's example provides a nice description of how and why the perspective phenomena works, while my example demonstrates what its effect looks like in practice.

 

double edit: Just to be clear, doubling the height of the cone like I did would be equivalent to doubling the range of the blasters. It will keep the original cone exactly the same, but add extra volume at the base.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Delta_V

[SWCNT]

@Ramalina and Delta_V

 

Thanks guys, when you're wrong, you're wrong, and I was wrong . I was thinking the circle was being viewed as the base of the cone rather than a small circle inscribed at a distance much less than the base range. I agree this wouldn't be noticeable with cone height changes, but would be sensitive to angle changes. Thanks for the diagrams and fruitful discussion! I appreciate the time both you took to draw/model the cone. I'll edit my previous post.

Edited June 3, 2015 by SWCNT

[Delta_V]

@Ramalina and Delta_V

 

Thanks guys, when you're wrong, you're wrong, and I was wrong . I was thinking the circle was being viewed as the base of the cone rather than a small circle inscribed at a distance much less than the base range. I agree this wouldn't be noticeable with cone height changes, but would be sensitive to angle changes. Thanks for the diagrams and fruitful discussion! I appreciate the time both you took to draw/model the cone. I'll edit my previous post.

 

Not a problem

 

I'm an engineer, so I have plenty of experience looking at 2D drawings of 3D objects. It has definitely given me an appreciation for how perspective can play tricks on you, lol.

[Odacervicix]

I like the direction of most of Nemarus' suggested changes, and have a few comments.

 

It would be nice to know just how broad we should be in our responses. One of the original questions, asking to know what one thing should be changed, suggests a very limited ability to alter anything. But the following question, asking what would make them more effective in both modes seems broader and more open ended. As you'll see, if you keep on reading, I go off the deep end a bit at the end, suggesting modified components which is probably beyond what the devs have time for.

 

Regarding suggested change #1, I like the idea suggested elsewhere of making Strikes mid-range specialists, and making that a thing that they can control and maintain. Of the ideas I've seen so far, I kind of like the idea of having the Strikes be able to boost the longest, but lose out in a turning fight to scouts. That would give them some ability to control distance, but won't take away the Scout's role as the knife fighter.

 

Although, after thinking about it for a while, I'm not sure how well it could be executed. Obviously, a Strike can't boost backwards (yeah, I know about retro thrusters, but you know what I mean). It can't be attacking while trying to create space, and, by the time it turns around, a scout might be back into knife fighting range. So then it might end up being a game of boost away, quick turn, snap shot, repeat. I'm not sure I want that to be the role of a Strike. Plus, booster recharge and S2E convertor, and to a lesser extent, tensor, would seem to negate any attempt to buff the Strike's boost endurance to where that's something that the Strike was uniquely really good at. Some of those builds can boost across entire maps, leaving the Strike without enough playfield to outrun them. Clearly, boost endurance is supposed to be a scout thing, and making it a strike thing probably requires gutting those abilities, which is probably off the table. Power Dive and Barrel Roll also would hurt the Strike's ability to control distance. So while I like the idea, I don't see a way to execute it.

 

So I guess if we can't do that, I find the suggestions in #1 to be fine. But I'd also buff their shields and shield regen a bit, with the understanding that scouts will still be able to run them down, but they'll be a little better off against ion railgun.

 

Looking at some of the proposed primary weapon buffs in points 2,3, and 4, I think the damage comes out too high. With burst damage, I like to see short periods of extreme damage, followed by periods of down time. Preferably, you have to pay for the burst by giving up something, e.g., using cool downs or what have you. This mechanic allows for interesting defensive play, wherein one can anticipate burst, avoid it, and then counter attack. If it doesn't have that sort of mechanic, it's not really burst damage. It's just really high sustained damage that I have to run away from constantly.

 

The only thing you give up for primary weapon shots is blaster pool, which isn't really much of a limiting resource right now. And I'm not sure that we want to make it one just to turn a moderate damage weapon into an intermittent bursty one.

 

Anyway, this isn't to say that I don't think buffs to primaries are not useful. I'd just like to see it done in a way where it's well below scout burst. I know that means that scouts get to be the premiere jouster in most cases. But they have systems in place wherein they pay for that burst. Strikes don't have a similar set up. And I don't see an easy way to create that.

 

Anyway, onto the stuff that probably requires too much development time.

 

I saw someone mentioned buffing rockets and giving them to Strikes. This seemed like something that could really be explored. Rockets seem like a great way to create burst for Strikes without disrupting the missile/missile break interaction, and without buffing primaries to extremely high levels. Maybe they are "heavy rockets" that hit twice as hard, fire half as often and have a longer range. Or whatever math makes sense. Worried about jousting scouts? Perhaps design the rockets so that a lined up and centered shot has really high accuracy that pierces some level of evasion.

 

And, if we really had significant development time, there are lots of things that could be done with rockets - EMP rockets would probably be better than EMP missiles for most cases. Ion rockets could be interesting, depending on how they were set up. It might allow firing of an ion weapon at the same time as a primary, allowing near simultaneous stripping of shields and hull damage. And once you load an AoE explosion onto a rocket, you kind of have an evasion piercing weapon. Think of it as a concussion mine that you can shoot.

 

Essentially, modifying rockets takes advantage of the underwhelming Strike secondary weapon slot to buff Strike damage while bypassing the distortion field missile break and without touching the scout/gunship balance.

 

The downside is if the rockets were good enough to make a difference, everyone might just dump missiles. Although, if we ended up with a mix of rocket and missile builds, that could also be a good thing. People might start having to choose between the two tier 3 distortion field choices, since the missile break would be useless against rocket builds. And if enough people chose the increased duration to distortion field, missile builds might become more viable.

 

Anyway, most of these ideas are probably DOA, due to the dev time limits. And I haven't really thought them all the way through. But I thought I would bring it up here rather than clutter the main thread with more stuff that probably can't be implemented. You guys can rip into it, if you're interested, and see if anything useful falls out.

[Linuxizer]

Instead of giving the T1 Strike the Feedback Shield, it may be better to give it the Overcharge Shield. The Feedback Shield suggestion is mostly an anti-NovaDive/Blackbolt change. Most of your other suggestions work on all enemies (except perhaps the accuracy boost, which is again more anti-scout than anti-gunship or anti-bomber).

 

Feedback Shield also works better against Scouts with LLC, LC, QLC or RFL than Scouts with BLC, because you can activate it while the Scout pilot is holding down the left mouse button. The BLC user should look whether the Feedback Shield is up before clicking another round. The NovaDive/Blackbolt is already weaker than the Flashfire/Sting. Giving Feedback Shield to T1 Strike makes it slightly worse.

 

Overcharge Shield would be more of a jack-of-all-trades shield, for what that's worth, including some benefit after getting hit by Ion Railgun, which is currently the biggest problem for the Strike.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Linuxizer

[ALaggyGrunt]

Overcharged shield has serious regen time issues. It can tank a couple of BLC crits, but then it will be down for a long time. And there's that pierce/snare issue again.

[Verain]

Interestingly, one ship DOES have a directional and overcharge choice. And the choice is never overcharge.

 

The type 3 bomber normally runs directional shields. One choice (charged plating) is terrible just like on the Starguard.

 

Overcharged shields dire penalty to recharge amount have left me experimenting with recharge reactor and the regen crewmember, in addition to more standard options. In all cases, the shield offers a little bit more power to one arc that directionals can, but at two big costs: first, that the active shield power on overcharged is not very important, and second, that the regeneration of the shield is absolutely awful.

 

I don't play the type 3 bomber tons or anything, and the math shows that they should be sort of interesting choices. In practice, directionals kicks the snot of out overcharged.

 

 

But what about a world where overcharged was definitely worth using sometimes? In that case, I would say, a solid choice for a type 1 strike component.

 

 

But note: You would also need to get plating off of the type 3 bomber.