Gidoza wrote:WEAPONS
INTRODUCTION: In my weapons section, I have an aim that is pretty plain: not all weapons are equal, but all weapons should be worth buying if one shows up…more or less. Every game is fundamentally random, and drops will be unpredictable, but control over the outcome of the game should not be lost on account of randomness or poor design. There should never be something in the game for which we can be casually “dismissive.” Just as superfluous Augmentations add clutter in the store, poorly-balanced or designed weapons only yield frustration when after 6 or 7 visits to a store, not a single useful thing is found - and I say this in the air of saying that if I had bought something after all those visits, I absolutely would have done worse in the long-term because of it. A few things I will propose are certainly radical, but anything radical, the AI will benefit from, anyways, so I think nothing will be lost by bolstering or weakening a few stragglers of weapon feebleness or power.
I start with Vanilla weapons, which of course are mostly untouched in CE, because the fact of the matter is that they play a part in CE, are unavoidable, and in a way the heart of the whole game. A balanced game is a happy game. Also, please take note that in weapons with various variations, I am using the CE naming for them here.
For reference, while I’ll probably make little groups of weapons to mention that are “OK,” for the most part I will just bring up weapons that concern me in some way and make the notes about those alone. In the “quick” section, however, I list every single weapon because even if I am not touching the weapon itself, I am doing considerable fiddling with rarities. I don’t discuss this in as much detail, to be fair, however I think we can all agree that some weapons are niche, some weapons are support, and some weapons are main - the rarities I have assigned gear towards an appropriate blend of the three.
Leto Missile: I could be wrong, but I thought I saw that this Missile was purchaseable in CE, but if I’m wrong, ignore this. I bring it up because if it is purchaseable, I would remove that possibility. This item is just so weak and awful that even though it seems “unfortunate” for an item to be inaccessible to the player throughout the game, on this one the game’s original designers made a good call: leaving this item in the store for purchase takes up room that really should be left for something else instead.
Artemis Missile: Again I could be imagining things, but I thought I saw this as purchaseable/droppable in CE. However, I find this one less objectionable, so whichever way it is now - we can just leave it be.
Hermes Missile/Hull Missile II: It has occurred to me after some thought that between the complaints I’ve seen on the forums, and my own dissatisfaction with these Missiles, that perhaps a not-so-complex solution could be at hand. Hermes Missiles are cool because they fire fairly fast, but they’re not all that satisfactory for their Power requirement; Hull Missiles are useful, but take so dang long to fire, and if you want to target a system, you won’t even get that much out of it. How about the following instead…
Hermes: Decrease power to 2, increase the charge time to 16, it still does 3 damage, higher fire chance (like 20-30% higher).
Hull Missile: Increase power to 3, decrease the charge time to 15, it now does 3 damage, higher Breach chance.
Now the Hermes is a slightly slower Missile, but with a solid punch, an admirable power requirement, sort of a weak Ares Missile with better Fire possibility that shoots more quickly; Hull Missiles take power, but shoot fast and hit hard. Well worth the investment. Hermes could keep its 45 cost and Hull Missiles could go up to 70. Meanwhile, the Rock A could have a “modified” Hull Missile that functions exactly as the original always did.
When it comes down to it, though, the new Scatter Missiles fill the niche of 2 Power well enough, so perhaps just improving Hermes to a cooldown of 13 and making Hull II have a cost of merely 45 with a higher Breach chance and lower cooldown would be more acceptable; it’s Hull Missile’s unreasonably high cooldown that makes it dissatisfactory and drives one away.
Hull Missile I: Unlike the Leto Missile, the unique Hull bonus here makes it worthwhile in the store, so I approve of having it around.
Pegasus Missiles/Breach Missiles/Swarm Missiles: They’re ok.
Peryton/Cockatrice/Simurgh Missiles: With no fire/breach chance, these are less impressive than standard Missiles, while having the advantage of getting past Defence Drones. I’ve compensated by reducing their prices slightly and making them more common than the standard Missile types (Lord knows that they are a menace to the player on the defensive, so we’re not losing out if we can pummel the AI with them as well).
Ifrit Launcher: The 4 Power is really a drag for a Missile Launcher, but otherwise this Launcher is of course amazing. I’d recommend a drop in price to 80 or 85.
Leviathan Missile Battery: At 2 Power and 1 System damage, it isn’t as good as similar regular Missiles, and slightly outperforms a Mine but with a larger Power demand. Slight reduction in price.
Titan Missile Battery: A couple more seconds and you have an Ares Missile, which is way more useful for its systems damage. On the plus side, Titan Batteries are cheap to buy. Reducing cooldown by 1 second.
Basic/Dual Lasers: Much like Leto Missiles, I’m insistent that Basic Lasers should not be in drops or in the store because of their implicit weakness, while Dual Lasers should not be in stores because of their implicit strength (Dual Laser Mk. II is different, though).
Burst Lasers: Obviously, Mark I’s are just fine, II’s are a powerhouse, but III’s and IV’s lack something. Here’s my suggestions.
Mark I: Leave alone; or, it could drop to a cooldown of 10, which is a fair balancing act for it when compared to other weapons with similar or less power requirements, like Heavy Laser I or Hull Laser II, and certainly weaker than Dual Lasers due to Power requirement.
Mark II: Either leave alone or increase recharge rate to 12.5 or 13. If recharge remains at 12, push its cost up to 90.
Mark III: Should have the same Fire possibility as Mark II; fires 5 shots instead of 4; price increase of 20 Scrap.
At a recharge rate of 16, it matches basically nothing for a volley, and so ultimately its effectiveness depends upon itself. At 5 shots for 3 power, it is roughly matching the output of a Mark II. This isn’t unreasonable both because it can easily be disarmed during its long charge time, or as already said, slows all volleys because of its cooldown. Make it rare enough, and this isn’t a problem.
Mark IV: Same fire chance as Mark II; fires 7 shots instead of 5; price increase to 105 Scrap.
Yes, it sounds like alot of shots, but with a charge time of 19, it certainly wasn’t better with 5 shots than a Mark II, and was extremely unwieldy on account of potentially getting unpowered, or otherwise being unable to “keep the enemy down” from waiting for so long - the extra firepower is needed to make this weapon function. Yes, 7 shots, NOT 6. It needs 7, and it’ll do well. However, it will need a price increase to 105. One can still be potentially screwed because of the long wait time or by having the Weapons system hit - but if the charge should go through, the hit will mean something for a change. In the end, making it the same rarity as other super weapons (Artillery Lasers, etc…) will put it in a section where it is appropriate; as it stands presently, any rarity whatsoever is a bad one, as I don’t want to see it in stores commonly or uncommonly when its usefulness is so severely hampered by reality. Twinge suggested a reduction to 50 Scrap on it and a cooldown of 18. The reality is, though - that this would still be so awful that I would still never purchase it. In fact, it’s a nerf, because if I get it as a drop, I want to sell it for a good chunk of money! The point is, this is now a weapon that counts!
Heavy Laser Mark II: While the Heavy Laser Mark I is a beautiful weapon, the Mark II sadly gets left behind too often because it takes too much power and doesn’t have enough shots to penetrate shields. Moreover, with the introduction in CE of other weapons like Artillery Lasers and their ilk (which have 1 Shield Piercing no less), there is scarcely a reason to consider Heavy Laser Mark II’s as an option unless there is really nothing else available and it is the only option remaining. I offer the following idea as a pretty confident alternative.
Heavy Charge Laser: While gaining the ability to fire every 7 seconds, this loses one second on the previous Heavy Laser Mark II, and paying 3 Power for only a 2-second gain on the Heavy Laser Mark I seems a bit poor. A cooldown decrease to 6.5 or 6 would be well due to make that 3 Power count.
Suggestion: Power requirement reduced to 2; cooldown increased to 15; cost increased to 80.
This will make it very power-efficient for damage, but a bit slow. With the power requirement, though, one should be able to fit enough other weapons to get the shields down and make it count.
Hull Smasher Lasers I/II/III: They’re inferior to a Burst II, superior to a Burst I minus the time constraints, similar to Heavy Laser I, and inferior with my changes to the higher Burst/Heavies. Finally, Hull Smashers have nothing whatsoever on Hull Crushers or Artillery Lasers, which blow these out of the water. Some kind of modification is needed to bring these slightly more in line while still maintaining their distinctiveness.
Hull Smasher I: Technically inferior to the Heavy Laser, but I suppose this doesn’t matter, because it’s a unique alternative weapon. 50% breach chance is ridiculously impressive here and possibly overpowered, but certainly puts it on par with the Heavy Laser I. I’m tempted to reduce that chance to only 40%. but perhaps we can just leave it.
Hull Smasher II: No fire chance; breach chance of 40%. While it can pulverize a ship quickly enough by hitting empty hull, it still needs support fire to do this; and it is otherwise far behind (particularly in time) Burst Lasers for effectiveness if systems need to be shot down. The breach chance will make up for this deficiency.
Hull Smasher III: Reduce cooldown to 14 (can’t think of a good reason for it to be 15); no fire chance; breach chance of 40%.
Chain Laser: While in theory it seems pretty good, in actuality it’s pretty bad - that charge takes a long time, and with the introduction of things like Dual Laser II in CE, Chain Lasers really lose out. I’m thinking to knock the starting cooldown down to 15 or even 14.5, and leave the cost the same.
Chain Vulcan: It’s ok.
Laser Charger I: A not-so-great weapon that ultimately lacks distinctiveness from other weapons. It’s benefit comes down to the quick shot that can keep shields (or some other system) down when the shields are already down on an enemy ship. Otherwise, it’s slower than a Burst Laser I for the same amount of shots, and just plain expensive as compared to a Dual Laser in terms of power. Some thoughts…
Possibility 1: Which I’m leaning towards most strongly - leave it alone apart from a cost decrease to 40 or 45.
Possibility 2: Reduce Power to 1, but increase the cooldown to 7, for a slow but efficient weapon whose output-to-power is acceptable (unlike the Dual Laser), but is distinctive enough compared to other single-shot items (like the Heavy Laser I).
Possibility 3: Reduce cooldown to 5. But I don’t like this option so much.
Big Laser Charger: This is the one that takes 3 Power for 4 shots, with a 5-second cooldown. This makes its relative damage output slightly better than a Burst Laser I, but with less Power efficiency; though it has more shield-penetrating ability. It’s not bad, but it’s a tad lacking, I think.
Suggestion: Reduce cooldown for each charge to 4.5.
Ion I/Ion II/Heavy Ion II/Heavy Ion III/Ion Stunner/Heavy Ion Stunner: All good.
Ion Charger: Proportionally very good for its price. Either needs to be rarer or more expensive.
Heavy Ion I: Even though as far as Ionization goes it is better than the Ion Blaster, the wait time makes it hard, and it doesn’t deplete anything more than the Ion I in terms of shields, so it’s kind of unimpressive. I’d legitimately suggest dropping the Power cost to 1, and then either making this weapon more rare, never show up, or more pricey (like 55).
Chain Ion: While this ends up being useful in the long-term, it is fairly weak while waiting and can’t really compare to the Ion II because the Ion II has an easier time recovering from misses due to frequent shots. I suggest dropping the cooldown to 13. Compare it in particular to the Heavy Ion III and one can see why it could use a slight boost…
Ion Pulse Cannons: The Mark III is obviously solid. The Mark I is a decent crap alternative to the Ion Cannon I. It’s the Mark II that makes me think. It can keep shields down in theory, but doesn’t quite have the punching power of the Ion Cannon II (4 shots @ 16 VS 3 shots @ 15), yet both are 3 Power, and the Ion Pulse is the same cost. Suggest dropping the cost here to 60 or 55.
Ion Flak: The Mark I isn’t much different from a regular Ion Cannon or a Heavy Ion Cannon, apart from the fact that it CAN bring down shields by repeated hits - however, it will miss sooner or later after the shields are down, and those will go back up again without other support. So when you think about it, this is a pretty good deal! The Mark II is even better at cutting down shields, and is probably worth its 3 Power very well as it can cut them down fast (not quite as well as an Ion Pulse III, but still pretty good). Perhaps if we knock Flak II down to only 11 cooldown as well (seeing as we have the same problem of inability to maintain shield shutdown), then we’re good for that long-term Power requirement.
Ion Burst Stunner: The thing here is that (as far as I know) multiple separate stuns don’t extend the stun duration, so this ends up being quite the unhelpful item. Yes, it has a Power of 1, but with a cooldown of 18, this won’t be keeping anyone down for very long. Needs a cooldown decrease, badly.
Phase Ion I/II: Basically, Phase Ions are Effectors that by themselves can knock out a single shield bubble as well as disrupting some system. It’s hard to justify actually targeting the Shields system itself, then, without other Ion weapons for support; additionally, if the Shields do go completely down, the Phase Ion loses half of its perks. So even though the Phase II can in theory keep down shields with a maxed out weapons crewman, it can’t hold the shields down forever. The main use, then, is to have one of these with no other Ion weapons really, just to deplete a shield bubble regularly and be annoying on some other system. It’s not the most impressive deal around, but it helps. This being said, the Mark I at 17 cooldown is quite a lot, but I suppose there is nothing wrong with it. The Mark II at 12 cooldown is good, but the 2 Power demand seems excessive for such a single-minded weapon. Mind you, it’s performing better than the Effectors at a similar Power requirement, so I guess one cannot complain. I suppose that in the end, they’re OK. Just not my favorite choice of weapon.
Mini Beam/Pike Beam/Halberd Beam/Fire Beam/Hull Beam I/Hull Beam II/Glaive Beam/Anti-Bio Beam II: All OK.
Anti-Bio Beam I: At 45 damage, it’s kind of underwhelming unless you have another such weapon to support it, and if you do, you may have trouble knocking down the shields in order to make use of it. Would suggest dropping Power requirement to 1, and increasing its cooldown time. More to the point, though, I don’t think it’s necessary for this weapon to exist at all - the original Mark II does its job well and it just creates clutter to add a weaker version of it.
Anti-Crew Weapons Generally: In this department, whereas I’ve suggested (particularly below - you’ll see) that some weapons favor the AI, this one definitely does not. Sometimes it feels like every single enemy has one of these weapons equipped, and for the most part I’m pleased about it, because it means that the opponent isn’t using a weapon that’s very useful. Recycling people at the Medbay isn’t a huge problem, and so while this may temporarily slow my weapons charge or decrease my evasion, the majority of the time, said weapons are just a dud in combat against me. On the other hand, a player can use them much more effectively, possibly too effectively - in a kind of sad way, these detract from the usefulness of the original Anti-Bio Beam, which was very rare and unique. Now, Anti-Crew weapons are everywhere, fairly easy to use, and cheap for their execution. When it comes down to it, I’d suggest making them rarer for the player (and for the AI as well) for two reasons.
#1 - They’re too common generally and really don’t do anything particularly diverse from one to the next other than more or less damage, which is fundamentally a different approach than most other weapons that have very clear distinctiveness in their functionality. The Anti-Bio Beam was “special” - and we want these to be “special” as well. On the upshot of it all, the Shield Piercing does mean that it isn’t completely worthless for the AI.
#2 - While these are useful, they shouldn’t detract from the regular presence of standard weapons.
Ultimately, it comes to a rarity counter change.
Healing Burst/Small Bomb/Big Bomb/Ion Bomb/Breach Bomb II/Repair Burst/Stun Bomb: All OK.
Cluster Bombs Generally: I suppose that I ultimately see no problem with them, but they are an oddity for a specific reason: this is probably the only type of weapon in the game that benefits the AI more than it benefits the player. Since the AI always shoots everywhere, this gives these bombs a chance to actually be quite potent; on the other hand, for the player, there is really nothing special about them, and they even seem kind of silly because of it. Though, having multiple chances to cause SOME damage (instead of a good chance for lots of damage) is its own perk. Having said that, I do think that they’re all decent enough as alternatives to standard bombs, and their presence is necessary to balance the changes of finding bombs as opposed to other things. The only one I can think to comment on is the Cluster Breach/Fire Bombs, which sometimes don’t accomplish much of anything due to their lower chances for success.
Fire Bombs: I’m kind of curious why we need three editions of the Fire Bomb, other than to make the possibility of getting a bomb that causes fires a more common one. It seems like the fires caused by any of the editions never exceed two in a system box, so the only benefit to the Fire Bomb III is the direct damage dealt to the system, whereas Fire Bomb I is getting a decent Power output. In fact, both the Mark I and Mark III offer a distinctively weird balance distinction as compared to the Mark II: the Mark III is so inefficient that one cannot keep the fire going (this is kind of the point of a Fire Bomb), and the Mark 1 launches so quickly that even without guaranteed fires, it ends up being more effective than a Mark II. Mark I could use a slight nerf, and Mark III a slight buff. Fire Cluster Bombs are just awful without guaranteed Fire and also slowness, so I’m making those 1 Power and slightly reducing the cooldown.
Minelaunchers And Scatter Guns: My commentary observation of these weapons is that they are particularly useful to the AI, and not quite as useful to the player. These weapons actually cause some concern to me in terms of “cluttering the Store” because - in some philosophical sense, I suppose - weapons have a different “meaning” to the AI than they do to the player. Of course, it is a benefit to the AI to knock out a player’s systems and incapacitate him - but when it comes right down to it, the AI “wins” when it causes sufficient damage. On the other hand, for the player, whereas much of the game needs to be played offensively to cause damage, this damage needs to be directed in such a way that your own ship takes minimal damage. Hence the problem with these items: they don’t do one of the most important things needed by a player, namely, to damage systems. They have a good total damage output in comparison with their Power requirements, and so one can just bulldoze an opponent with damage and hope for the best, but this can never really compare to wounding the Weapons or Drone or Shields system of an enemy, incapacitating them, and taking no damage or next to none in the long run.
The point here: these items are biased towards the AI, less useful for the player, and their inclusion in the Store displaces other desirable weapons that would otherwise be used to help the player accomplish his goal in terms of planting damage in certain places.
For the most part, I don’t see a problem, but I’ll illustrate it this way.
Burst Scatter I: If a Dual Laser isn’t purchaseable in the game, then this is a good low-power option for knocking out shields so other weapons can do damage; same deal for the AI. It’s good - but it needs support fire.
Burst Scatter II/Scatter Flak: Again more of the same as above. These are sort of like a wimpy version of Flak cannons because they don’t inflict systems damage, so in order to make them useful, the volley needs to be attuned to these first. Again, needs support fire.
So basically for the above, there’s nothing wrong and they have their place, but they can’t be functioning as primary weapons. As such, if they are to be included within the breadth of weaponry available to the player, two things need to come to the surface.
#1 - They need to be more rare than standard-type weapons. When it comes to standard fire, Heavy Lasers/Burst Lasers/Hull Lasers are what the player is depending on, and we can’t have these weapons displacing those other ones too often. So perhaps Burst Scatter I can be common, but the others need to be quite rare. Whatever the similar-rank weapon the others would be, these should be one higher. This would put Burst Scatter I’s at a rank of about 3, and Burst Scatter II/Scatter Flak at 4 or 5, but most likely 5.
#2 - Because the benefit is limited particularly to shield-shugging, and I’ve now forced them into the rare department, these weapons don’t need to be particularly expensive, even if they have relatively good Power-to-damage output. They’re niche weapons and need to be treated as such.
Minelaunchers: What’s good about the various minelaunchers is that they don’t exceed 2 power for whatever damage it is that they’re doing. However, no matter the damage, they’re always using a Missile no matter what. And this Missile doesn’t seem to be doing any more damage than comparative regular Missiles, is slow as can be, and doesn’t damage systems. Whereas there is a bias for the AI in Burst Scatter Lasers, the bias here is even stronger: the AI “theoretically” has infinite Missiles at its disposal because one keeps encountering new ships: sure, each ship will run out, but from the player’s point of view (especially without a Defence Drone), the AI is firing way more Missiles than the player ever would. Consequently, the output of a Minelauncher for the player relative to other Missile weapons and relative to the AI is quite low.
As I’ve suggested Scatter Lasers, the compensation for this is that Minelaunchers are ridiculously cheap. But in this case, I’d like to add one more: Minelaunchers for the player are ultimately big punching bags (hit the enemy with lots of damage till he dies), and so we need to fulfill that purpose and aim for it, but without helping the AI too much. So, what we need is an AI version of the Minelauncher, and a player version of the Minelauncher. The AI can shoot its mines as it always does and hit for that nasty 3 or 4 damage that is always upsetting. The player version can get a +1 damage bonus on its mines (or an extra mine for the one that shoots multiple shoots). Otherwise, no changes. Thus, the AI still gets in nasty hits where appropriate, and the player can use the minelauncher as an actual viable alternative to the standard Missile: whereas one does some damage and disrupts systems, the other is intended to crush the opponent’s hull as quickly as possible. If I’m going to use a Missile, it had better be worth it - system damage is transferred to hull.
EDIT: After seeing the data files, I can see that you’ve already thought of this, but have taken a different approach by giving AI Mines a higher power requirement, which makes it at least feasible to disable enemy Minelaunchers. I think throwing a damage bonus on top of the player’s version is still necessary, though, because it’s not just about preventing the enemy from firing the Mines, but for the Mines to be objectively useful for the player’s investment as well.
Heavy Scatter Laser I/II: I do wonder why the Heavy Scatter I has a longer charge than the Heavy Laser, and perhaps it could decrease its charge time to 8 or 7, but whatever. Perhaps it would be more fun to keep it at 10 but make its fire/breach chances better than the Heavy Laser to compensate for lower System damage. The Mark II seems fine, though, and 3 damage with 2 system damage at 2 Power seems like a very good alternative to the Heavy Laser I – it’s cooldown is bang on for optimal effectiveness and diversity. Good variety, here.
Ion Pulse Cannons: The Mark III is solid because of its power requirement of 4. The others demand a fair bit of power considering their inability to hold down shields, and certainly don’t seem like a decent alternative to Vanilla Ion weapons, so perhaps these could be revised slightly.
Effectors: I’m not a super big fan of these, but I admit that it may be because I don’t know how to use them. I can see how perpetual ionization on internal systems other than shields could be overpowered if only a single weapon is in use, but hence the issue - I rarely see Effectors enough, much less two, to be able to make use of such a mechanic. The Heavy Effector seems like the best deal because of its longevity, and 4 ionization is quite a bit. I suppose the other just make for being a positive nuisance by knocking out engines somewhat to reduce evasion, or reduce weapon recharge. Yeah, nevermind, these are OK. They’re just weird.
Makes sense that they should be more rare than not, though. 2 Power seems like a lot in order to commit for eliminating just a single weapon on an enemy ship without even depleting any shields - somehow, one has to come up with the rest of the weapon power to penetrate those shields and defeat the enemy, and I don’t think Effector are really providing for this. I’m inclined to want to say to reduce Power for the Mark I/II down to 1 so they can blend better with other weapons.
Basic Laser II: For one power, a faster Basic Laser is a cool idea. I like it.
Dual Laser II: Worth a comment, as this is basically just a super awesome version of the Burst Laser I, and also leaves Chain Burst Lasers in the dust because of its quick cooldown. This sort of thing is best left rare and expensive.
Auto Laser I: Seems good. Isn’t reliable for much unless you can knock out shields somehow, but its real boon is supporting Drones that are attacking the enemy, as there is a decided lack of weapons that have quick fire to do this. The joke of a price of 20 is right on, and I’ve even thought of dropping it to 15.
Auto Laser II: 3 Power is just too much. Yes, it shoots fast (better output than a Burst Laser Mark II, actually) - but are we really going to compare this weapon to something like the Artillery Laser, the Hull Laser III, or other such 3-Power items? It can’t penetrate shields without lots of help - this is a niche weapon, a better version than the Mark I, and this deserves a significant price increase - but it shines pretty much only with Drones. You can’t make an arsenal out of these things. Let’s make it rare, increase the cost a little, and drop the Power requirement down to 2.
Maul Beam: Cool punch beam, but for its cooldown, Power requirement, and relative damage to other beams, its damage needs to be upgraded to 6. This keeps it on par with the now beautiful Burst Laser Mark IV, which is actually worth using. Also, when you think about it, Artillery Laser II has 4 damage for 6 with Shield Piercing and less cooldown, so this seems about fair.
Hasta Beam: Nothing wrong with the beam other than it shows up too often. Increase rarity.
Baton/Bo Beam: Cool niche beams, although I think the Bo Beam gets shafted in this deal. The Baton Beam has all the length it needs for the majority of uses at least where crew is concerned (can’t argue with Bo Beam’s length for damaging systems), which is the reason I would be using it. The Bo Beam, in contrast, has no better Stun and probably won’t be hitting much or any more crew despite its longer trail. Now I admit, I like to use a Baton in conjunction with boarding and then attack incapacitated crew - the Bo Beam would do decently to prevent repairs if one is getting the shields down; but there’s still a 6-second pause in cooldown over the Baton Beam’s 2 with regard to Stun length. My simple suggestion: make the cooldown the same as the Baton Beam.
Hull Beam I: Compared to its bigger sister with the same Power requirement and such a longer damage trail, and compared to other beams with only a 1 power requirement, at 2 Power this is safe to drop to a cooldown of 9.
Auto Focus Beam: Is this worth 2 Power? I’m not sure. I suppose that if the shields go down, this will keep them down forever. Before then, it’s a heavy burden on the system. Either drop Power to 1, or reduce its cost to about 30 or 35.
Various New Missiles: I can’t see anything of note to comment on. They’re variations of the Vanilla missiles that offer a bit of a different flavor. This is cool. Scatter Missiles aren’t reliable for system damage, though, so deserve to be a bit cheaper.
Artillery Laser I/Artillery Laser II/Hull Crusher Laser: Definitely all too strong. Whereas I’ve been advocating for buffs to a variety of small things, these go waaaaay off the charts and are quite unreasonable in their strength. What particularly puts them over the edge is their 1 shield piercing. Actually, I’m surprised that none of these had a rarity of 5 in the game, and that they’re so cheap to purchase for their strength. Anyways, let’s do a review of each to see some standing.
Hull Crusher: Basically if it has external fire support (and I just assume this to be the case), it’s the same as a Hull Smasher III, but it only costs 2 Power. AND it pierces one shield?!? No!!! Minimum nerf is to up it to a 3 Power requirement, but let’s move on.
Artillery Laser I: At 3 Power for 4 punch with 13 cooldown and 1 shield piercing, this may be less efficient than a Burst Laser II, but that one shield piercing brings it up to par. Compare with Burst Laser III (before I modded it) which is firing 4 shots after 16 seconds without much effects, and this just laughably catapults itself beyond everything in awesomeness; can also compare with Heavy Laser II, only for us to find out that both the damage and the cooldown are the same, but with the Shield Piercing, this weapon definitely has the upper hand. Oh, yes.
Artillery Laser II: 4 Power for 6 damage is the same proportions as a Burst Laser II, except this manages to kick out the extra damage with only an 18-second span. Sheesh! Too strong. Yes, I admit that I am raising Burst Laser III/IV up to Burst Laser II levels, but to go beyond that is just too much!
What I see here, however, is a fun interplay on Power and Damage that I think was intended: we want to have a 2, 3, and 4-Power item, all with different damage values. I think that the neatest solution to this without overpowering anything would be to mix them all up instead. Here’s an alternative suggestion.
Artillery Laser I: Power 2, Damage 3, Cooldown 13, 1 Shield Piercing. Retains Fire/Breach/Stun chances. The damage isn’t super impressive or anything and it’s otherwise practically identical to a Burst Laser II - it’s gained some efficiency in power, but lost damage per second. It’s still up there in the “ultimate weapons” category by being stronger than a Burst Laser II, but it won’t be “that” strong. This is a reliable, powerful weapon that can do damage with support fire. This is good. Maybe increase cost to 95.
Artillery Laser II: Power 3, Damage 5, Cooldown 18, 1 Shield Piercing, slight reduction in Fire/Breach/Stun chances. Gains some Power efficiency, but loses some damage per second. The damage per second is actually inferior to the previous Artillery Laser I at 4 damage for 13 seconds. So this ends up being better than the revised Artillery Laser I, but it is not light years ahead: again, it is an ultimate weapon, but it isn’t at obscenely powerful levels. Perfectly worth 120 Scrap, though, but we could make it 115.
Hull Crusher Laser: Power 4, Damage 4, Cooldown 15, 1 Shield Piercing; always breaches, and better Fire/Stun. Power-to-damage remains exactly the same, although its damage per second if hitting barren hull borders on the obscene. Basically, from a Systems damage perspective this is either weak/unimpressive/on par, but from a Hull Crushing perspective this is closer to my revisions to Minelaunchers - smack ‘em and kill ‘em quick, but you might take some damage along the way. An appropriate ultimate weapon that has its drawbacks and is no longer too strong, the appropriate next level up of the Hull Smasher III. Is probably worth more than 80 Scrap to buy now, though - let’s make it 105.
DRONES
So whereas with Augmentations I’m pretty much totally confident in my observations, and in Weapons I’m 90% confident, this section I will admit is a bit more iffy and may provoke rebellion. Okay, okay, I’m exaggerating. The thing with Drones (as with Missiles) is that no matter how good or how awful, every Drone is using one Drone part, so balance just can’t work the same way it does for standard non-ammo consuming weapons. I do believe that things are allowed to be disproportionate here and still work well. But anyways, I’ll just start talking and see what happens…
Combat Drone I: The thing about the Combat Drone is that while it can be effective, it depends almost completely on other weapons for that effectiveness. And not just any weapons – very specifically, Ion weapons (in order to keep the shields down so it can penetrate), or other quick-shooting weapons (other Drones, or Auto Lasers, which are unique to CE, since Vanilla has no real counterpart other than Charge Lasers and Vulcans, and asteroids). Without this kind of support, the Drone is kind of a dud just flying around unless the shields get crushed, at which point one wonders why you need the Drone anymore. Other benefits that come from it are knocking out that extra shield point when it’s just too much for your other weapons to handle. So the question is – is it worth 2 Power? I suppose so. A decent assessment from my point of view would put it to 1.5 Power, and 1 Power just seems too little. So 2 it has to be. My suggestion: reduce its cost to 40 Scrap, and reduce the Drone Control with a Combat Drone I to 80 Scrap. It’s a tad lacking, but not really – 5-10 Scrap of difference should fix the problem.
Beam Drone I: Whereas the Combat Drone can knock out shields, this can’t. It won’t miss ever, and can sometimes hit two rooms, but the benefits offered by a standard Combat Drone in knocking out that extra shield when one needs it are so much more. Again, 1 Power might be a bit low, but perhaps we could aim for a compromise.
Suggestion: Beam Drone I that start on ships (Zoltan, Engi) stay the same; however, if one should purchase a Beam Drone I in a shop or get one in a drop, it requires only 1 Power to use and has slightly less Beam length (like 2 points) so that it’s less likely to hit two rooms. This will make it a nice backup without costing too much.
Combat Drone II: Can utterly beat up weak early-game ships, but at 4 Power? Too much. Later on, evasion with high and fast-regenerating shields negate much of its contribution; meanwhile, there are several CE Drones that are way better at 3 or 4 Power than this one. Reduce to 3 Power, and increase its cost to 80 or 85.
Beam Drone II: Going from a similar line of the Beam Drone I, this isn’t going to help you unless the shields of the opponent are utterly crushed. It otherwise does nothing. 2 Power isn’t unreasonable.
Stealth Beam Drone: 3 Power is appropriate here with cloaking, but I wonder if we couldn’t have a little fun with it and give it 1 Shield Piercing with 1 damage. This would probably help the AI more than it would help the player, but it would be an inspiring and different damage-dealer than the standard drone.
Hull Drone I: Appropriate at 2 Power, because the random hits on empty rooms actually count for 2. Superior to the Combat Drone I. Yay!
Hull Drone II: This one makes sense at 4 Power unlike the Combat Drone II, for the same reason as the Hull Drone I: that small bonus is actually a big one.
Ion Intruder Drone: I appreciate that it has stun, which makes it not useless. However, there’s a bias for the AI over the player: since the AI generally has crew to spare (you’re fighting ship after ship that’s dying anyways, so crew in some sense is “expendible”), it’s easier for the AI to deal with one of these than for the player to deal with one. I humbly suggest knocking the Power cost down to 2 – either way, it’s still using one Drone part and will be dying just as fast.
Fire Drone: Kind of a short length for a Beam that can’t penetrate shields and ignites random fires. Is it worth 3 Power? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong and could take it either way.
Repair Drone: I’ve seen people argue before that these should cost 0 power, and I’m inclined to agree. The fact of the matter is that I can’t come up with any good reason to use one except on the Engi B until I have more crew, and after that, a good offence is the best defence, so I will never have one on my ship.
Leaking Repair Drone: If I can scarcely come up with a reason to use a regular, good Repair Drone, why on earth would I want this thing? This should not come up in stores or drops – a waste of space and just an insult to the player.
Anti-Personnel Drone: Again, a good offence is the best defence – I’m never going to use one of these except in the most desperate of situations, and probably not then, either. Reduce Power to 1. It would also be nice if in addition to the 150 hit points, it had the 50% damage boost of the Mantis as well.
Faulty AP Drone: Um, no. Again, delete.
Heavy Laser Drone I: Good!
Heavy Laser Drone II: Good!
Shield Overcharger: Reduce to 2 Power – not effective enough to warrant 3. As Twinge has suggested in his balance patch, it is also appropriate to make the Overcharger+ cost only 1 Power.
Anti-Combat Drone: Good!
Ion Anti-Drone Drone: No!!! This thing never hits anything, and more Anti-Combat Drones are not a priority in the game. Delete!
Swarm Missile Anti-Drone: Delete!
Heavy Laser Anti-Drone Drone: Okay, fine, we’ll leave this one alive.
Effector Anti-Drone Drone: This one’s actually strong enough as an Anti-Drone to be meaningful, so we can leave it, too.
Scatter Drone: If the Combat Drone I is barely worth 2 Power and actually hurts systems, this one can hardly be justified to cost 2 Power. Reduce Power cost to 1 and we have a useful support fire Drone that’s worth its weight. We can increase its cost to 50 to compensate for the low Power it requires for functionality.
Heavy Scatter Drone: MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED.
Scatter Defence Drone: So ridiculously effective! It can sometimes knock out all three Missiles from the Flagship, almost always fires to target (unlike Defence I…), and rarely misses. This level of effectiveness warrants 3 Power. Nerf!
Defence Drone I: Okay.
Defence Drone II: Okay.
Defence Drone III: Hard to justify this being 4 Power without some kind of upgrade – even 0.5 cooldown isn’t enough of a difference over the #2 to make this a specially distinctive investment, and it still suffers from the same problem of failing to hit Missiles if other projectiles are incoming. Maybe if this thing also shot down Drones, that would be worth 4 Power and possibly overpowered (haha). Otherwise, we can just reduce it to 3 Power and let it be a really impressively-performing Mark II.
Light Defence Drone I: This is cool. One Power for a 6-second reload, which means it can handle single-Missile batteries, but will falter if in an Asteroid field or if the enemy has multiple Missiles to shoot. Very beautifully distinctive Drone, here.
Light Defence Drone II: Basically this is just a better Defence Drone I that isn’t quite as good as the Scatter Defence Drone, and actually hits its targets most of the time. Worth the 2 Power in a strong and reliable way.
Missile Defence Turret/Swarm Missile Defence Turret: These are both really silly, but also kind of cool. I don’t want to get rid of them, because a Defence Drone that works “half” the time isn’t a bad idea – the limitation I’d put on this is that they should be really RARE. They shouldn’t be showing up in the shop or in drops regularly due to their extreme crappiness. If it is possible, I’d suggest that they can show up in the shop, but never in drops.
Heavy Defence I/II: These are kind of cool in their weakness and mediocre functionality. I like it.
Ion Defence Drone: No. Delete!
Plasma Drone: This works.
Heavy Beam Drone: 4 Power is perfectly appropriate here. Yay!
Focus Beam Drone: 3 Power appropriate here. Yay!
Swarm Missile/Heavy Missile/Missile/Missile MK II: These all seem appropriate in their slowness and power demands, as they do what regular Combat Drones never can do on their own: penetrate shields. These can be game-winners and are borderline overpowered, but I think they’re ultimately OK as they are.
Ion/Heavy Ion Drone: If they were faster, they’d do too much in terms of shield-shocking and would become the Ion Drone Mark II; on the other hand, smacking the shields just once and having that bubble down for a while is certainly useful (unlike the shakiness of a Combat Drone for killing that shield), and these can also support even a single Ion weapon very well. Nicely rounded.
Ion Drone Mark II: Worth the 4 Power – nice!
Anti-Crew Drones: These Drones make sense for the AI, but are weird to use by the player. Whereas the AI’s use of these Drones disrupts the player’s ship, not necessarily killing anyone but messing up functionality, the player’s use of these can often be impractical: you can board with these around without a Cloning Bay for risk of killing your own crew, and even with a Cloning Bay it’s often beneficial not to have the Anti-Crew Drones around anyways. If you’re not boarding, the random shots hit opponents so rarely that you can’t really count on them to bring down the targets in a time that I would consider reasonable. These Drones aren’t bad, they’re just…weird. I’d insist on making all of them on the rarer side so the more important Drones come up more often.
Repair Drones: They’re good, of course.
Boarding Drones: I find the boosterless Drones kind of silly, but at 2 Power, I guess the investment is well-placed.
):
. I see what you mean now, that since artillery has to be an option, instead of just opening the FTLGame exe file, you have to re-patch the game, and this cuts into your time because you have limited "spurts" to play. In that case:
Well, maybe a tiny price reduction, though, as it does eat all your Missiles…
