Forums » Suggestions
For Celebrim.
Ion, I think it's good as it is, one level up from the bus cannon, and a lot more bang for its buck.
Phaser. This was nerfed, and we got no explanation why. I liked this weapon when it had the fastest cyclic firing rate.
Gauss. Depending on the original intent of the weapon, it either needs to take a hit in the damage it does (vs fighter), or slow the velocity (vs heavy craft). Either way, it needs to lose some aimbot.
Gravitron. Currently nerfed. Howabout a 2m prox radius for this? A la Ep2. Either that or a 210 m/s velocity to compensate for the low fire and high intake.
Tachyon. Good balance so far. Excellent at pegging Valks and Vults that are boosting at you, as well as taking down heavy ships.
Charged cannon. Useless. Give it the gauss aimbot and speed.
Gatling Cannon. Make it a small port weapon. Or, give the flechette the damage of the gatling, and take out the gatling. These weapons are identical in nature, but both are useless.
Adv. gatling turret. Increase the range just a tad. That or its velocity. It is nearly perfectly balanced.
Plasma cannon. Only good at heavy vs heavy (kinda). It needs insane aimbot (larger than gauss) and a big velocity boost.
Ion, I think it's good as it is, one level up from the bus cannon, and a lot more bang for its buck.
Phaser. This was nerfed, and we got no explanation why. I liked this weapon when it had the fastest cyclic firing rate.
Gauss. Depending on the original intent of the weapon, it either needs to take a hit in the damage it does (vs fighter), or slow the velocity (vs heavy craft). Either way, it needs to lose some aimbot.
Gravitron. Currently nerfed. Howabout a 2m prox radius for this? A la Ep2. Either that or a 210 m/s velocity to compensate for the low fire and high intake.
Tachyon. Good balance so far. Excellent at pegging Valks and Vults that are boosting at you, as well as taking down heavy ships.
Charged cannon. Useless. Give it the gauss aimbot and speed.
Gatling Cannon. Make it a small port weapon. Or, give the flechette the damage of the gatling, and take out the gatling. These weapons are identical in nature, but both are useless.
Adv. gatling turret. Increase the range just a tad. That or its velocity. It is nearly perfectly balanced.
Plasma cannon. Only good at heavy vs heavy (kinda). It needs insane aimbot (larger than gauss) and a big velocity boost.
Well, I'm not celebrim but...
Ion--Agreed with everything said.
Phaser--Agreed with everything said.
Gauss--I don't mind the speed so much, but that damned autoaim is too frickin' high. If it's been decided that all the properties will remain, it would be more appropriate as an L-port weapon than an S-port weapon.
Graviton--Not sure about giving such a thin laser projectile a 2m prox radius. That might be a little over the top. I'd rather have it go at a quicker speed--210ms sounds reasonable.
Tachyon--Agreed with everything said.
Charged Cannon--Agreed with everything said.
Gatling Cannon--Agreed with everything said.
Adv Gatling Turret--Agreed with everything said. Others might whine about the proposed changes, but remember the spread is what balances it out at longer ranges. Perfect weapon for suppressive fire.
Plasma Cannon--Agreed with everything said. I think this AND the gauss cannon should be L-port weapons. The plasma cannon would be like one step above the gauss cannon (akin to graviton vs tachyon). They're essentially the same type of weapon, but with different color graphics.
Ion--Agreed with everything said.
Phaser--Agreed with everything said.
Gauss--I don't mind the speed so much, but that damned autoaim is too frickin' high. If it's been decided that all the properties will remain, it would be more appropriate as an L-port weapon than an S-port weapon.
Graviton--Not sure about giving such a thin laser projectile a 2m prox radius. That might be a little over the top. I'd rather have it go at a quicker speed--210ms sounds reasonable.
Tachyon--Agreed with everything said.
Charged Cannon--Agreed with everything said.
Gatling Cannon--Agreed with everything said.
Adv Gatling Turret--Agreed with everything said. Others might whine about the proposed changes, but remember the spread is what balances it out at longer ranges. Perfect weapon for suppressive fire.
Plasma Cannon--Agreed with everything said. I think this AND the gauss cannon should be L-port weapons. The plasma cannon would be like one step above the gauss cannon (akin to graviton vs tachyon). They're essentially the same type of weapon, but with different color graphics.
Hmm... ok.
Ion Blaster: Needs to be more energy efficient - perhaps only 4 energy/shot. Increased energy efficiency would make the weapon more interesting in the long run and not just a weapon which is only quickly discarded after a brief period of use when the player first starts playing. Should be available in multiple grades possibly with fictious company and trade names like we have for the 'Avalon' torpedoes. The better grades might offer +10 m/s and +50 damage for roughly the same energy usage but at a higher cost (still cheap by comparison to other weapons). This general pattern should be true of most of basic the energy weapons.
Phaser: Needs to be both more energy efficient and more effective. I concur with increasing the cycling rate. Also drop the energy usage down to 6/shot or so.
Gauss: I'm inclined to agree that the gauss is slightly too good, but would prefer to drop its autoaim down a very small degree - say 5 degrees of arc - and improve the other weapons.
Gravitons: Up cycle rate up to 6/second. Gravitons would have the highest damage output/second of any weapon in the game. The 2m prox radius is interesting and I like it, but I'm not ready to advocate that yet until I think more about it and some of the other changes get made.
Tachyon: Up speed to 210 m/s. Tachyon should be a prime high skill dog-fighting weapon.
Charged Cannon: Increase max damage to ~3600 and reduce charging time to max charge. Increase speed as well as damage the longer the cannon is charged to roughly max 270 m/s. Give the cannon splash damage over 30 m/s (but not proximity) when at least 2/3rd's charged.
Gatling Cannon: Increase energy efficiency and reduce cost down to 750cr or so. This should be an introductory level 'heavy weapon' in much the same way as the ion blaster, and should also be available in several increasingly expensive grades.
Flechette Cannon: Increase damage by 50 points per shot, increase speed by 10m/s, and double firing rate (preferably in 'bursts').
Advanced Gatling Cannon: I like it pretty much as is. Perhaps reduce cost somewhat (half?) to make a high end heavy fighter cost more nearly the same as a high end light fighter.
Plasma Cannon: Boost damage by 50 points per shot, increase auto-aim arc by 5 degrees, and increase velocity by 10-20m/s.
Railgun: Reduce energy consumption to about 45/shot. This should be another prime fighter weapon, and should via with the sunflare as the primary kill weapon.
New 'guns' needed/wanted: 'fast energy weapon' (disrupter), 'proximity direct fire weapon' (light and heavy autocannons), 'charging ammo weapon' (heavy rail gun), 'area of effect weapon' (soliton cannon), etc.
Ion Blaster: Needs to be more energy efficient - perhaps only 4 energy/shot. Increased energy efficiency would make the weapon more interesting in the long run and not just a weapon which is only quickly discarded after a brief period of use when the player first starts playing. Should be available in multiple grades possibly with fictious company and trade names like we have for the 'Avalon' torpedoes. The better grades might offer +10 m/s and +50 damage for roughly the same energy usage but at a higher cost (still cheap by comparison to other weapons). This general pattern should be true of most of basic the energy weapons.
Phaser: Needs to be both more energy efficient and more effective. I concur with increasing the cycling rate. Also drop the energy usage down to 6/shot or so.
Gauss: I'm inclined to agree that the gauss is slightly too good, but would prefer to drop its autoaim down a very small degree - say 5 degrees of arc - and improve the other weapons.
Gravitons: Up cycle rate up to 6/second. Gravitons would have the highest damage output/second of any weapon in the game. The 2m prox radius is interesting and I like it, but I'm not ready to advocate that yet until I think more about it and some of the other changes get made.
Tachyon: Up speed to 210 m/s. Tachyon should be a prime high skill dog-fighting weapon.
Charged Cannon: Increase max damage to ~3600 and reduce charging time to max charge. Increase speed as well as damage the longer the cannon is charged to roughly max 270 m/s. Give the cannon splash damage over 30 m/s (but not proximity) when at least 2/3rd's charged.
Gatling Cannon: Increase energy efficiency and reduce cost down to 750cr or so. This should be an introductory level 'heavy weapon' in much the same way as the ion blaster, and should also be available in several increasingly expensive grades.
Flechette Cannon: Increase damage by 50 points per shot, increase speed by 10m/s, and double firing rate (preferably in 'bursts').
Advanced Gatling Cannon: I like it pretty much as is. Perhaps reduce cost somewhat (half?) to make a high end heavy fighter cost more nearly the same as a high end light fighter.
Plasma Cannon: Boost damage by 50 points per shot, increase auto-aim arc by 5 degrees, and increase velocity by 10-20m/s.
Railgun: Reduce energy consumption to about 45/shot. This should be another prime fighter weapon, and should via with the sunflare as the primary kill weapon.
New 'guns' needed/wanted: 'fast energy weapon' (disrupter), 'proximity direct fire weapon' (light and heavy autocannons), 'charging ammo weapon' (heavy rail gun), 'area of effect weapon' (soliton cannon), etc.
Celebrim, I think you got Tachyons and Gravitons reversed. If you increase the ROF of the gravitons it'll eat up energy way too quickly. The Graviton is distinct in that it's a slower ROF but more powerful weapon. The Tachyon appears to have quicker ROF and low energy consumption, but at the cost of decreased damage. So it would only make sense to increase the speed of the Gravition and increase the ROF of the Tachyons, not the other way around. It's essentially the same idea you're getting at but with the names reversed.
Summary:
Tachyons
-High rate of fire.
-Low energy consumption.
-Moderate damage.
-190 m/s or 200 m/s projectile speed.
Gravitons
-Low rate of fire.
-High energy consumption.
-High damage.
-210 m/s projectile speed.
This makes Gravitons the choice for the advanced marksman who doesn't need a high rate of fire, but is instead patient and precise with his shots. The Tachyons on the other hand make an ideal chase or dueling weapon, where energy consumption and rate of fire is critical. The best way I can compare it to real-world terms is an assault rifle versus a submachine gun. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses and both have their own distinct applications.
Summary:
Tachyons
-High rate of fire.
-Low energy consumption.
-Moderate damage.
-190 m/s or 200 m/s projectile speed.
Gravitons
-Low rate of fire.
-High energy consumption.
-High damage.
-210 m/s projectile speed.
This makes Gravitons the choice for the advanced marksman who doesn't need a high rate of fire, but is instead patient and precise with his shots. The Tachyons on the other hand make an ideal chase or dueling weapon, where energy consumption and rate of fire is critical. The best way I can compare it to real-world terms is an assault rifle versus a submachine gun. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses and both have their own distinct applications.
I agree with Celebrim, appended with Arolte's suggestion about Tachs or Gravs.
I would also like some sort of energy weapon that is distinct in its ability to exert a concussive force, like the rockets do. Gauss is already good enough, so it doesn't need it, but something else, with less damage, would be nice. A sort of "disorienting" weapon that's good for supression fire.
I would also like some sort of energy weapon that is distinct in its ability to exert a concussive force, like the rockets do. Gauss is already good enough, so it doesn't need it, but something else, with less damage, would be nice. A sort of "disorienting" weapon that's good for supression fire.
I agree more with Celebrim than with Arolte. The graviton used to have more damage AND a faster cycling rate than the tachyon. The way I see a graviton is as a quick-damage weapon. Just fly up to someone and, although you can only fire for about 2 seconds, do a ton of damage. Then recharge your battery.
I also think that -all- energy weapons should exert force, and that something like the rail gun should exert a ton of force. Just imagine sitting there, then getting railed and flying backwards at a high speed...
I also think that -all- energy weapons should exert force, and that something like the rail gun should exert a ton of force. Just imagine sitting there, then getting railed and flying backwards at a high speed...
I think that all the forces of weapons are abit overblown. Weapons generally don't shove thier targets around except in the movies. This is because weapons, if they are effective weapons at all, tend to overcome the shear strength of the material that they hit and spend most of thier energy tearing and deforming the object that they hit. Unless you are wearing a bullet proof vest, you are unlikely to get knocked backwards by the force of a bullet hitting you. The bullet is much more likely to expend its force tearing up or shattering everything in its path, and even if you are wearing a bullet proof vest you are just as likely to end up with a broken rib as getting knocked over.
As far as explosions go, even something relatively fragile like the human body can survive a tremendous amount of concussive force - IIRC something in the neighborhood of 500 lbs. per square inch of the moment of impact is short enough. (This data actually came about during WWI as operational analysts learned to thier surprise that a surprising number of soldiers were surviving very close impacts by HE artillery shells). The real thing that kills you in an explosion is not the concusive force, but fragmentation (and anti-personel shells were redesigned accordingly). As long as the force is equally distributed on your body, it may throw your around, burst your ear drums,and cause some internal bruising, and so forth, but you will likely survive. Concentrate that same ammount of force on a smaller area and your body will just come apart instead of being shoved.
The idea that weapons do alot of shoving of thier targets comes (as I said before) from the movies, and is a consequence of the fact that its alot easier to keep your stunt man alive if you shove him around than if you actually dismantle his body the way a real weapon would.
While we are on the subject of movie making, real world explosive devices (notably grenades) tend to produce smaller and less fiery explosions than the ones in the movies because the dangerous part is the invisible fragments they are throwing off. Movie makers doctor thier explosions by adding alot of liquid gasoline to increase the visibility of the explosion.
Back on topic, as for the Graviton, the idea was to provide a weapon that could do a tremendous ammount of damage in a short, accurate burst. Making the Graviton more of a high damage markman's weapon would put it to much in direct competition with the Gauss, and snipers would be more likely to use the (re-improved) railgun than the rebalanced Graviton anyway.
Also, low rate of fire/high energy consumption and high rate of fire/low energy consumption are completely offsetting, as are low rate of fire/high damage and high rate of fire/low damage. In practice, without taking into account armor/first strike effects, the two weapons could end up much the same if we weren't careful.
Most simply, something like:
Simple Weapon #1
Shots/Second: 12
Damage/Shot: 300
Energy/Shot: 5
Velocity: 180
and
Simple Weapon #2
Shots/Second: 6
Damage/Shot: 600
Energy/Shot: 10
Velocity: 180
Are different, but they aren't interestingly different - and in this case #2 is clearly better. I'm not opposed to Arolte's idea, I just don't think its as needful of a niche as was filled by the old Graviton or could be filled by a properly designed version.
As far as explosions go, even something relatively fragile like the human body can survive a tremendous amount of concussive force - IIRC something in the neighborhood of 500 lbs. per square inch of the moment of impact is short enough. (This data actually came about during WWI as operational analysts learned to thier surprise that a surprising number of soldiers were surviving very close impacts by HE artillery shells). The real thing that kills you in an explosion is not the concusive force, but fragmentation (and anti-personel shells were redesigned accordingly). As long as the force is equally distributed on your body, it may throw your around, burst your ear drums,and cause some internal bruising, and so forth, but you will likely survive. Concentrate that same ammount of force on a smaller area and your body will just come apart instead of being shoved.
The idea that weapons do alot of shoving of thier targets comes (as I said before) from the movies, and is a consequence of the fact that its alot easier to keep your stunt man alive if you shove him around than if you actually dismantle his body the way a real weapon would.
While we are on the subject of movie making, real world explosive devices (notably grenades) tend to produce smaller and less fiery explosions than the ones in the movies because the dangerous part is the invisible fragments they are throwing off. Movie makers doctor thier explosions by adding alot of liquid gasoline to increase the visibility of the explosion.
Back on topic, as for the Graviton, the idea was to provide a weapon that could do a tremendous ammount of damage in a short, accurate burst. Making the Graviton more of a high damage markman's weapon would put it to much in direct competition with the Gauss, and snipers would be more likely to use the (re-improved) railgun than the rebalanced Graviton anyway.
Also, low rate of fire/high energy consumption and high rate of fire/low energy consumption are completely offsetting, as are low rate of fire/high damage and high rate of fire/low damage. In practice, without taking into account armor/first strike effects, the two weapons could end up much the same if we weren't careful.
Most simply, something like:
Simple Weapon #1
Shots/Second: 12
Damage/Shot: 300
Energy/Shot: 5
Velocity: 180
and
Simple Weapon #2
Shots/Second: 6
Damage/Shot: 600
Energy/Shot: 10
Velocity: 180
Are different, but they aren't interestingly different - and in this case #2 is clearly better. I'm not opposed to Arolte's idea, I just don't think its as needful of a niche as was filled by the old Graviton or could be filled by a properly designed version.
I would also have people note that the "old" gravitron was changed after only two weeks, since it was superior to the tachyon in every way.
Celebrim, I liked your idea of a "heavy" rail gun, as the plasma cannon is a "heavy" gauss cannon. Perhaps a "heavy" rail gun could be a beam cannon:
Beam Cannon
ROF: Shot/2 seconds
Damage: 3500
Range: 3000 m
Energy consumption: 200/shot
Autoaim: none
Velocity: instantaneous
The values are a little high, but better to make a little too powerful and then tone it down. However, due to the energy consumption, it would be hard to group these effectively on a Ragnarok. This could be an excellent anti fighter weapon for a frigate.
----
OT: Celebrim, I think you have it reversed. My father has told me that he came across a lot of dead Viet Cong that had nary a scratch on their bodies, but telltale blood splotches on their ears. At least in Vietnam, artillery depended on the concussive force of an explosion to kill. With 155mm guns, yeah, you could clear trees with explosions, but the overwhelming forces exerted would end up claiming most kills. Consider the human body. The slightest force can harm it. It takes only 7.5 lbs of force to break a collarbone. that amount of force can be applied with the bare hands. Now picture an explosive device, such a weapon exerts far more than 7.5 lbs of concussive force. OK, enough of that.. I don't want to drag this any farther off-topic. :P
Celebrim, I liked your idea of a "heavy" rail gun, as the plasma cannon is a "heavy" gauss cannon. Perhaps a "heavy" rail gun could be a beam cannon:
Beam Cannon
ROF: Shot/2 seconds
Damage: 3500
Range: 3000 m
Energy consumption: 200/shot
Autoaim: none
Velocity: instantaneous
The values are a little high, but better to make a little too powerful and then tone it down. However, due to the energy consumption, it would be hard to group these effectively on a Ragnarok. This could be an excellent anti fighter weapon for a frigate.
----
OT: Celebrim, I think you have it reversed. My father has told me that he came across a lot of dead Viet Cong that had nary a scratch on their bodies, but telltale blood splotches on their ears. At least in Vietnam, artillery depended on the concussive force of an explosion to kill. With 155mm guns, yeah, you could clear trees with explosions, but the overwhelming forces exerted would end up claiming most kills. Consider the human body. The slightest force can harm it. It takes only 7.5 lbs of force to break a collarbone. that amount of force can be applied with the bare hands. Now picture an explosive device, such a weapon exerts far more than 7.5 lbs of concussive force. OK, enough of that.. I don't want to drag this any farther off-topic. :P
Roguelazer, the roles of the weapons have simply been reversed. Yes, the Gravitons used to be the faster ROF weapon than the Tachyons back in 3.2.0. But now that has changed. We're making proposals based on what the Gravitons and Tachyons are NOW. SirCamps and I are essentially suggesting similar ideas. The only difference between now and then is the name change. That's all. If everyone is feeling nostalgic or whatever, the devs can just as easily switch the names around to give it the same properties as before.
Celebrim, the proposed differences between the Graviton and Tachyons are far from slight. In fact the goal is the opposite. Right now Gravitons are the preferred weapon of choice for sharpshooters who like to take their time aiming, but can dish out a lot of damage with each hit. Tachyons are ideal with chases and duels because you can fire so many of 'em without running out of too much energy. The proposals are meant to make those differences more bold and noticeable, and to make both weapons less nerfed than they are now (versus sunflare/gauss users).
While they may not be as radically different as you'd like them to me, that doesn't mean there can't be newer weapons in the future. Remember, this is an MMORPG that's supposed to have thousands of sectors available to the player. I think it would be safe to assume that we'll see around 200 some different weapons total in the final game. We'll probably continue seeing a tier system for some of the energy weapons (i.e. tachyons, gravitons, phased blaster, etc.). However, there are also totally unique weapons like the Flechette and the Charged Cannon that are in their infancy, which implies that there will also be totally different weapons (maybe even special) later on.
In other words I don't think that it's really necessary to change something that's already fairly balanced when more new things will come along anyway. Think in terms of the big picture and propose a whole new weapon that would have the same properties as the old Phased Blaster or whatever you are envisioning. Don't feel threatened that the Graviton or Tachyons changed roles completely and became less distinguishable. Instead, propose a new weapon that'll revisit the role of that lost weapon. After all, a name is just a name.
Celebrim, the proposed differences between the Graviton and Tachyons are far from slight. In fact the goal is the opposite. Right now Gravitons are the preferred weapon of choice for sharpshooters who like to take their time aiming, but can dish out a lot of damage with each hit. Tachyons are ideal with chases and duels because you can fire so many of 'em without running out of too much energy. The proposals are meant to make those differences more bold and noticeable, and to make both weapons less nerfed than they are now (versus sunflare/gauss users).
While they may not be as radically different as you'd like them to me, that doesn't mean there can't be newer weapons in the future. Remember, this is an MMORPG that's supposed to have thousands of sectors available to the player. I think it would be safe to assume that we'll see around 200 some different weapons total in the final game. We'll probably continue seeing a tier system for some of the energy weapons (i.e. tachyons, gravitons, phased blaster, etc.). However, there are also totally unique weapons like the Flechette and the Charged Cannon that are in their infancy, which implies that there will also be totally different weapons (maybe even special) later on.
In other words I don't think that it's really necessary to change something that's already fairly balanced when more new things will come along anyway. Think in terms of the big picture and propose a whole new weapon that would have the same properties as the old Phased Blaster or whatever you are envisioning. Don't feel threatened that the Graviton or Tachyons changed roles completely and became less distinguishable. Instead, propose a new weapon that'll revisit the role of that lost weapon. After all, a name is just a name.
I believe all weapons are nicely balanced as they are. More and more weapons are going to be put in the game and changing these current ones will just mean they will have to be changed later AGAIN to meet people's thoughts of how they suck or are too good against the newest weapons. We are prolly looking at getting new ships and bigger more powerful weapons as Vendetta progresses and changing should only happen near the final release of Vendetta.
So, Starfreeze, you believe that the phaser and charged cannons are balanced versus the gauss? You believe that the plasma cannon is a more capable weapon than the gauss? You think that L-port homing weapons are effective (minus swarms)? :\
No homing weapons besides gemini and swarms are effective, but that's OT in an energy weapon thread.
SirCamps: Well, to totally take this over and turn it into a military discussion...I'm still looking for definative air burst numbers, but here are some numbers for concusive blasts in water that I found.
"CHARGE SIZE, DISTANCE & RISK OF INJURY for TNT is given by :-
(Imperial pounds divided by 2.2 convert to metric kilograms)
Pressure (lb/in2) = 13000x charge size (lb) 1/3 divided by Distance from the charge (feet) (3ft=1m)
2000 lb/in2 = 909 kg will cause death
500 lb/in2 = 227 kg will cause serious injury or death"
And
"In air the cause of damage is from the shock wave, shrapnel & objects drawn into the pressure wave. In water these objects are retarded. In air much of the pressure wave is reflected at the body surface because this is an interface between media of different densities,any blast effect acting through the ear, nose, and mouth. Intestinal injury rarely occurs. The threshold for lung damage = 100Kpa,15psi(Edmonds 3 Lavonas 7)."
For air, the pressures would be roughly the same, but the distances at which a given pressure is generated would be much less because of the fact that air is compressible and much of the energy would be disappated by the compression and release of the air.
I'm not by any means denying that pressure alone can kill. For a round the size of a 155mm HE, you are talking about very large blast radi (30m or so). It is perfectly possible to be below the line of fragmentation and still get killed by a 155 round by the damage you mention. But please not the enormous pressures that this medical text sites as normally required for lethality (500lbs/sq in and up). Killing personel in the open with HE shells is almost a waste of ammunition. Two hundred pounds of pressure per square inch on the face of a small single story building translates into more than 4000 tons of force - more than enough to rip it apart. But a person lying down outside the building would probably survive a ground burst at that distance. Granted, he'd need medical attention and he'd be much less than comfortable and probably coughing up blood and unable to hear, but he'd be breathing.
All I can say about Vietnam is an astounding ammount of ordinance was fired. It was literally thousands of pounds for each of the 1 million or so vietnamese that were killed over the course of the war. This was somewhat before the day of precision guided weapons.
My point was only that peoples intuitive understanding of what is lethal is wrong. Going into WWI the best doctor's in the world figured that it would take 5lb's of pressure per square inch to kill a person. I guess they imagined him with a big weight on him and being smashed flat. But pressure waves exert very short impetuses of force and at a reasonable distance from the blast against something as small as a human they spread that force very uniformly. This reduces twisting and distorting forces that might otherwise shatter bones and do lots of damage.
Now, there are weapons that break the rules. Fuel Air Explosives and Hyperbaric weapons are designed to produce much more powerful pressure waves than conventional HE's. In the case of FAE's, they are creating implosive force which the human body is much less able to resist. In the case of Hyperbaric weapons, they are generating pressure waves of much higher than 2000lb's/sq. in with the result ... well, we won't go there. They are nasty weapons (and neither of them are much applicable to space).
There, how's that for a nasty lesson in the effects of violence. I'm so sickened by this line of thought that I'm going to have to go away for a while before I can get back on topic and answer some of the challenges made.
"CHARGE SIZE, DISTANCE & RISK OF INJURY for TNT is given by :-
(Imperial pounds divided by 2.2 convert to metric kilograms)
Pressure (lb/in2) = 13000x charge size (lb) 1/3 divided by Distance from the charge (feet) (3ft=1m)
2000 lb/in2 = 909 kg will cause death
500 lb/in2 = 227 kg will cause serious injury or death"
And
"In air the cause of damage is from the shock wave, shrapnel & objects drawn into the pressure wave. In water these objects are retarded. In air much of the pressure wave is reflected at the body surface because this is an interface between media of different densities,any blast effect acting through the ear, nose, and mouth. Intestinal injury rarely occurs. The threshold for lung damage = 100Kpa,15psi(Edmonds 3 Lavonas 7)."
For air, the pressures would be roughly the same, but the distances at which a given pressure is generated would be much less because of the fact that air is compressible and much of the energy would be disappated by the compression and release of the air.
I'm not by any means denying that pressure alone can kill. For a round the size of a 155mm HE, you are talking about very large blast radi (30m or so). It is perfectly possible to be below the line of fragmentation and still get killed by a 155 round by the damage you mention. But please not the enormous pressures that this medical text sites as normally required for lethality (500lbs/sq in and up). Killing personel in the open with HE shells is almost a waste of ammunition. Two hundred pounds of pressure per square inch on the face of a small single story building translates into more than 4000 tons of force - more than enough to rip it apart. But a person lying down outside the building would probably survive a ground burst at that distance. Granted, he'd need medical attention and he'd be much less than comfortable and probably coughing up blood and unable to hear, but he'd be breathing.
All I can say about Vietnam is an astounding ammount of ordinance was fired. It was literally thousands of pounds for each of the 1 million or so vietnamese that were killed over the course of the war. This was somewhat before the day of precision guided weapons.
My point was only that peoples intuitive understanding of what is lethal is wrong. Going into WWI the best doctor's in the world figured that it would take 5lb's of pressure per square inch to kill a person. I guess they imagined him with a big weight on him and being smashed flat. But pressure waves exert very short impetuses of force and at a reasonable distance from the blast against something as small as a human they spread that force very uniformly. This reduces twisting and distorting forces that might otherwise shatter bones and do lots of damage.
Now, there are weapons that break the rules. Fuel Air Explosives and Hyperbaric weapons are designed to produce much more powerful pressure waves than conventional HE's. In the case of FAE's, they are creating implosive force which the human body is much less able to resist. In the case of Hyperbaric weapons, they are generating pressure waves of much higher than 2000lb's/sq. in with the result ... well, we won't go there. They are nasty weapons (and neither of them are much applicable to space).
There, how's that for a nasty lesson in the effects of violence. I'm so sickened by this line of thought that I'm going to have to go away for a while before I can get back on topic and answer some of the challenges made.
"So, Starfreeze, you believe that the phaser and charged cannons are balanced versus the gauss? You believe that the plasma cannon is a more capable weapon than the gauss? You think that L-port homing weapons are effective (minus swarms)? :\"
Yes.
Yes.
Celebrim, you said yourself that reality was not a prerequisite of balance nor of fun. That goes for you too Camps. This doesn't help. If it's that important we can come up with some pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo to justify anything we do in the Vendetta Universe, so don't worry about it. Besides, the fact that damage is always evenly spread out around the ship implies that there is some sort of dampening field in effect that is actively spreading the damage around to prevent the hull from being punctured (That would suck in outer space.) So technically, any projectile, no matter how small, would act like it was exerting a force on the entire surface of the craft. (See, pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo works every time.)
It's just a matter of deciding which weapons ought to exert a force. Rails shouldn't since freezing someone up with a weapon like that only opens them up for more rail shots. Especially in a tri-rail valk which can cycle the rails as fast as its battery can handle. Tachyons might benefit from it, but I think they would benefit far more from a speed or ROF boost. As would gravitons. Gauss doesn't need anything. That's why I would like to see energy weapons that are unique in their ability to cause concussive forces.
IBut definitely not the majority of energy weapons. Maybe the weak ones, like the phased blaster and ion cannon can get it to balance them out a bit more.
Later on, I would like to see a "shockwave cannon" weapon that does about 50 damage, fires 2 rounds per second with each round having a diameter of 10m, moves at 60m/s. It's kicker is the shockwave. It'll throw your ship around like crazy at the expense of killing your battery. It would be perfect to beef up ships that use a heavy batt. like the hornet or other heavies. Valks and vults, which often rely on turbo to give them added maneuverability wouldn't be able to make good use of it. The fact that it does very little damage also makes it relatively useless for ships with less than 3 ports as well.
We can have a giant 360 degree shockwave sheild for heavy ships too.
It's just a matter of deciding which weapons ought to exert a force. Rails shouldn't since freezing someone up with a weapon like that only opens them up for more rail shots. Especially in a tri-rail valk which can cycle the rails as fast as its battery can handle. Tachyons might benefit from it, but I think they would benefit far more from a speed or ROF boost. As would gravitons. Gauss doesn't need anything. That's why I would like to see energy weapons that are unique in their ability to cause concussive forces.
IBut definitely not the majority of energy weapons. Maybe the weak ones, like the phased blaster and ion cannon can get it to balance them out a bit more.
Later on, I would like to see a "shockwave cannon" weapon that does about 50 damage, fires 2 rounds per second with each round having a diameter of 10m, moves at 60m/s. It's kicker is the shockwave. It'll throw your ship around like crazy at the expense of killing your battery. It would be perfect to beef up ships that use a heavy batt. like the hornet or other heavies. Valks and vults, which often rely on turbo to give them added maneuverability wouldn't be able to make good use of it. The fact that it does very little damage also makes it relatively useless for ships with less than 3 ports as well.
We can have a giant 360 degree shockwave sheild for heavy ships too.
I never said that we shouldn't have weapons which do push the ship around at least a little. Heck, I wouldn't mind the 'heavy railgun' pushing the ship _firing_ ship around.
I merely said we shouldn't go overboard and have large highly exagerated effects. The whole line of thought was in responce to the statement "I also think that -all- energy weapons should exert force, and that something like the rail gun should exert a ton of force." No effect or a small subtle effect is perfectly fine for most weapons, including such things as Sunflares. To me, the principal advantage of impacts is their flavor and emmersiveness. They heighten the perception of 'being there'. The visual jarring sensation I get from being too close to my own Sunflare is great. Having the ship tossed around like a rag doll by every weapon impact wouldn't be.
Because I'm principally talking about emmersiveness, I feel more confident bring reality into the discussion than I would about balance or some other gameplay issues. And because I'm talking about emmersiveness, my major interest would be in seeing good sound effects tied to the impacts. Flechette's should whiz as they go by and should ping when they hit. Gauss's and rails should be sharp cracks followed by metallic bangs if they hit. Significant damage should ideally be followed by creaks and groans as the structure of the ship stretches and tears. So forth. But as for fun and balance, it's hard enough to balance things without targets being stunned or going into shock when hit.
Anyhow, weapons which would be interesting to have some 'impact' effect:
0) 'Anything that explodes': Obviously, we've pretty much got this as is. There is some question if its effecting balance in the case of the already probablimatic 'tri-flare', but the servers been too laggy for me to really get a feel for it lately.
1) Graviton Blaster: Hey, its gravitons, right? Never mind the physics, if you get hit by a beam of force particles you'd expect some shaking going on. Should be very slight, like 0.5m vector change per impact (assuming mass similar to a Warthog, less of course if you are bigger).
2) 'Heavy Rail Gun' (Hypothetical ammunition consuming charging weapon. See some old 'sniper' threads): Should 'ring the bell' of anything it hits, and 'kick' when fired.
3) 'Soliton Cannon' (Hypothetical radius of effect weapon): Prime candidate for a reasonably disruptive 'push' - after all its supposed to be a wave of coherent force.
4) 'X-Ray Laser' (Hypothetical 'drawback' weapon): In the real world, powered by explosions. Fits right in with the weapons drawback (damages your own hull too) to feel the explosion when it occurs.
5) 'Repulsar Cannon'/'Tractor Beam': Obviously, in the niche of 'does more pushing than damage'.
6) 'Gravity Mine': Woo hoo! The gravity mine is on the verge of becoming a reality.
I merely said we shouldn't go overboard and have large highly exagerated effects. The whole line of thought was in responce to the statement "I also think that -all- energy weapons should exert force, and that something like the rail gun should exert a ton of force." No effect or a small subtle effect is perfectly fine for most weapons, including such things as Sunflares. To me, the principal advantage of impacts is their flavor and emmersiveness. They heighten the perception of 'being there'. The visual jarring sensation I get from being too close to my own Sunflare is great. Having the ship tossed around like a rag doll by every weapon impact wouldn't be.
Because I'm principally talking about emmersiveness, I feel more confident bring reality into the discussion than I would about balance or some other gameplay issues. And because I'm talking about emmersiveness, my major interest would be in seeing good sound effects tied to the impacts. Flechette's should whiz as they go by and should ping when they hit. Gauss's and rails should be sharp cracks followed by metallic bangs if they hit. Significant damage should ideally be followed by creaks and groans as the structure of the ship stretches and tears. So forth. But as for fun and balance, it's hard enough to balance things without targets being stunned or going into shock when hit.
Anyhow, weapons which would be interesting to have some 'impact' effect:
0) 'Anything that explodes': Obviously, we've pretty much got this as is. There is some question if its effecting balance in the case of the already probablimatic 'tri-flare', but the servers been too laggy for me to really get a feel for it lately.
1) Graviton Blaster: Hey, its gravitons, right? Never mind the physics, if you get hit by a beam of force particles you'd expect some shaking going on. Should be very slight, like 0.5m vector change per impact (assuming mass similar to a Warthog, less of course if you are bigger).
2) 'Heavy Rail Gun' (Hypothetical ammunition consuming charging weapon. See some old 'sniper' threads): Should 'ring the bell' of anything it hits, and 'kick' when fired.
3) 'Soliton Cannon' (Hypothetical radius of effect weapon): Prime candidate for a reasonably disruptive 'push' - after all its supposed to be a wave of coherent force.
4) 'X-Ray Laser' (Hypothetical 'drawback' weapon): In the real world, powered by explosions. Fits right in with the weapons drawback (damages your own hull too) to feel the explosion when it occurs.
5) 'Repulsar Cannon'/'Tractor Beam': Obviously, in the niche of 'does more pushing than damage'.
6) 'Gravity Mine': Woo hoo! The gravity mine is on the verge of becoming a reality.
I like the idea that non-explosive weapons have some kind of concussive force on your ship, but it should be restricted to reflect the intention of the weapon. Remember what the devs said when they introduced the 'force' effect? They hoped that it would allow more interesting avenues for tactics and weapons. The impact of weapons should be used to tactical advantage, and should be designed to help seperate the different weapons. ie: a guass round or two to 'stun' your opponent and disorientate them, followed by a burst of high repeat tachs while they are slowed down. Many players are starting to take advantage of this effect already: a sunflare knocks your opponent about, and for a moment, they are a sitting duck for guass or tachyons...
So maybe the gravitron could retain much the same repeat rate, speed, and energy usage, but drop in damage. Its value then would be in the force that it creates on impact. The tachyons would remain the same as it is now, with no (or very little) force...
-ts-
So maybe the gravitron could retain much the same repeat rate, speed, and energy usage, but drop in damage. Its value then would be in the force that it creates on impact. The tachyons would remain the same as it is now, with no (or very little) force...
-ts-
This _DOES_ open up for a lot of new weapons:
UT2K4 hellbender weapon: Fires a bunch of gaseous balls of scientific mumbo jumbo. When you stop firing, it fires a bunch of beams at the balls, exploding them nearly simultaneously. They do damage and have a shockwave effect. Devastating if you first surround your target with the gaseous balls.
Flechette minicannon/autocannon: Same as the flechette, but fires explosive rounds. Perhaps this should be a medium-port weapon.
---------------
Celebrim, considering that force is applied equally over the human body, take into allowances for strengths and weaknesses. For instance, you could punch me as hard as you want in the pec muscle, but unless you actually break a bone, you will do no damage. However, take that same amount of force, and apply it to the solar plexus or temple, and you will instantly knock someone out (lack of oxygen) or kill them (hemorrhaging blood vessels in the brain). A blow to the head can easily destroy the blood vessels in there, and that instantly kills.
Granted, I haven't looked into all the scientific evidence and fact, but 5 lbs of force could kill someone if applied directly to the temple. Remember, it only takes 7.5 lbs of force to break the collarbone. Most people can exert that much with their bare hands.
UT2K4 hellbender weapon: Fires a bunch of gaseous balls of scientific mumbo jumbo. When you stop firing, it fires a bunch of beams at the balls, exploding them nearly simultaneously. They do damage and have a shockwave effect. Devastating if you first surround your target with the gaseous balls.
Flechette minicannon/autocannon: Same as the flechette, but fires explosive rounds. Perhaps this should be a medium-port weapon.
---------------
Celebrim, considering that force is applied equally over the human body, take into allowances for strengths and weaknesses. For instance, you could punch me as hard as you want in the pec muscle, but unless you actually break a bone, you will do no damage. However, take that same amount of force, and apply it to the solar plexus or temple, and you will instantly knock someone out (lack of oxygen) or kill them (hemorrhaging blood vessels in the brain). A blow to the head can easily destroy the blood vessels in there, and that instantly kills.
Granted, I haven't looked into all the scientific evidence and fact, but 5 lbs of force could kill someone if applied directly to the temple. Remember, it only takes 7.5 lbs of force to break the collarbone. Most people can exert that much with their bare hands.
SirCamps: Are you in a martial arts program?
How'd you guess? :D Kwung-mukwon (way of the cat) Taekwondo (punch kick way of life) and USMC martial arts (very boring compared to Korean karate).