Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
2018-07-16, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 2018-07-16 11:24 AM by NutterChap.)
Post: #31
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
Im sorry Draba, but giving APS linear cooling stacking will not make me consider using CRAMs when building for meta, all of a sudden. In my eyes, it does not fix the relative weakness of CRAM vs APS in all purposes. It would help put APS in a more balanced place of course, causing higher guages to need more coolers than before to obtain a high RoF. But CRAM is not any more useful after that change, given the current meta. Unless, of course, the number of coolers needed for higher guage APS goes up exponentially, not linear. Then, high guage APS will not be able to spew lead as fast anymore, shifting the choice for weapons to break heavy armor from APS, slightly more to CRAM.

But only slightly, given CRAMs cost, low chance to hit a moving target, and lacking DPS. Even after the APS coolers change, just place a higher number of slower firing APS guns for X materials wil probably still out-DPS a CRAM setup of X materials, with the added benefit of LAMs avoidance and bigger hit chance. I dont feel it is enough to make CRAM the obvious choice for going large-guage.

Everything that ever started to exist, has a cause.

(There is) A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
-Ecclesiastes 3:3
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-07-16, 11:52 AM (This post was last modified: 2018-07-16 11:57 AM by draba.)
Post: #32
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
(2018-07-16 11:03 AM)NutterChap Wrote:  Im sorry Draba, but giving APS linear cooling stacking will not make me consider using CRAMs when building for meta, all of a sudden. In my eyes, it does not fix the relative weakness of CRAM vs APS in all purposes. It would help put APS in a more balanced place of course, but CRAM is not any more useful after that change.

I fail to see how the linear cooling change to APS would make CRAM more viable, if even for a niche meta. Please enlighten me. Smile

First part of my post was that making CRAMs not bad has 2 parts:
  • Make them able to connect on SOMETHING Smile
    That means shield/LAMS tweaks + better shell velocity or making big/heavy things less agile.
  • Make the numbers more attractive compared to APS.
    I think CRAM damage range/cost is kinda OK, it just looks bad because APS scaling is way off.
    The post I responded to suggested solving this part by making CRAM dirt cheap to bring it UP to APS level damage/cost for volume.
    IMO that's a fundamentally bad idea that throws off damage/durability even more and makes active defenses more important(I think you can guess what the problem is with that).

Second is linear cooler scaling would help in bringing APS in line:
  • Should be a pretty big nerf to APS firerates without messing with the damage/shell ratio(I think that's pretty nice with the 2.0 changes).
  • GP heat scaling could affect higher calibers more, to make using small ones not bad.
  • Dumping all the stocked shells relatively early in the battle wouldn't be as attractive(if you even use clips ofc).

Linear cooling IN ITSELF wouldn't make CRAMs not bad.
It would only be part of an APS adjustment, and the APS adjustment would only be part of making CRAMs somewhat useful.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-07-16, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 2018-07-16 01:35 PM by temeter.)
Post: #33
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
(2018-07-16 10:42 AM)draba Wrote:  APS comes up because they are the outlier, not CRAMs.
Crams are completely useless against a well built vehicle. You will never be able to balance CRAMs vs mobility. So they are always going to be a niche early game weapon. Besides that, they are more expensive than all other weapons at the same time, which is what the thread is about.

If that doesn't qualify as an outlier, then I don't know what you're thinking off.

Quote:Blindly changing 1 system without understanding it won't fix anything.
Changing APS just because CRAM has irreperable flaws and is almost objectively too expensive doesn't just not fix things, but can damage the game.

APS might have issues, but that doesn't mean it has to be broken to the standard of CRAM.

Quote:Making weapons even cheaper means every vehicles is 80% guns by volume(instead of the current 60), and now it's even harder to ditch active defenses.
Them being somewhat expensive would mean less spam and armor being a bit more attractive.
CRAM numbers actually look pretty nice, the only real problems are the godawful speed and the usual shield/LAMS.
Kinetic damage is in the rightish range to match the heaviest armors(if you skimp on HE/frag), HE/frag payloads are good, EMP is useless so doesn't matter.c
So you'd prefer to make all other weapons more expensive? Alright, that's a legit argument, one that I maybe could even get behind, since offensive always has a leg up on defensive. But that doesn't really affect APS in particular, and it certainly doesn't affect how CRAM cannons are more expensive than any other weapon system relatively right now.

And saying CRAM cannon numbers look nice, except the one thing (speed) that completely breaks it... well yeah, it's broken. It cannot be unbroken. Kinetic CRAM is also a bit useless since the slow speed hurts any attempt at precision.

As for the exp damage... I haven't tested it sepcifically, but can CRAM exp damage even do more than scratch a layer of armor/HA/armor? I doubt it honestly. And it sounds more like an argument for generally stronger armor, not a specific problem of a weapon system.

Quote:Payload scales with volume, not surface.

[quote]The current scaling factor of 1.95 is probably a design choice to allow for 18-500mm range without making either extreme too silly.
Since reload scaling factor is only 1.5 500mm payloads do ~36% more damage than 250mm ones. That still doesn't take into account better velocity, smaller fuse/base overhead, better HE/flak/EMP payloads without penalty and the fact that every single damage type that's not thump is much better when not broken up into small instances.
Even straight kinetic/linear stacking frag are ultimately worse than simply using higher calibers.

Linear stacking is for coolers, because current mechanics are simply bad and it's an obvious solution to some problems.
Dismissing it without understanding the very basics is really, really annoying.
Square cube law states that volume grows faster than it's surface area, which was the point, since there were posts that misunderstood that relationship. Also applies to gauge/diameter of a tube/cylinder.

You got lots of solid points otherwise, but I think as for the basics, your limitation to linear cooldown gauges seems a bit naive. You basically just say that large caliber cannons should fire slower than they are now. That could be done in many ways, from increasing reload scaling, to complexity scaling up faster for large guns, to nerfing cooldown gauges, to increasing Gun Powder scaling.

And even if you need two or three times as many cooldown gauges for the same ROF, that still wouldn't do much to nerf max size APS cannons. You'd need to go excessive, like the cannon to need to be 25% cooldown modules to even reach 30rpm to make a change, and building cannons that way would be a massive pain. Tetris'ing autoloaders is fine, but fitting a kilometer-long tube of gauges into a small turrets? God fucking no! The particle cannon building experience is already tedious enough.

Reload factor seems like a much better way to approach it. If you really want to go hard at it, you might as well change the input feeder scaling.

Quote:TL;DR: linear cooling is good, making any weapons cheaper is a really fucking bad idea.

TL;DR: First one only if you wanna piss off your entire playerbase, while there are better alternatives at nerfing high caliber APS, and second part doesn't change that CRAMs are extremly overpriced in relation to any other weapon system in the game.

Which really makes me feel that the specific APS scaling systems, while intersting on their own, have little to do with the specific CRAM flaws that make them a niche weapon, and the prices that are annoying OP.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-07-16, 04:10 PM
Post: #34
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
(2018-07-16 01:27 PM)temeter Wrote:  Besides that, they are more expensive than all other weapons at the same time, which is what the thread is about.
...
APS might have issues, but that doesn't mean it has to be broken to the standard of CRAM.
...
the specific APS scaling systems, while intersting on their own, have little to do with ... the prices that are annoying OP.

One of those main issues with APS is the absurd damage output against shieldless targets when it can consistently hit.
My point was that APS has to be nerfed a lot if shields are to be toned down, in that case unchanged CRAM could be better against targets that it can hit.
APS getting a big firerate nerf is practically equivalent to APS getting a lot more expensive, that makes CRAM look cheaper for the same punch.

(2018-07-16 01:27 PM)temeter Wrote:  Crams are completely useless against a well built vehicle. You will never be able to balance CRAMs vs mobility. So they are always going to be a niche early game weapon.
...
And saying CRAM cannon numbers look nice, except the one thing (speed) that completely breaks it... well yeah, it's broken. It cannot be unbroken. Kinetic CRAM is also a bit useless since the slow speed hurts any attempt at precision.
...
the specific APS scaling systems, while intersting on their own, have little to do with the specific CRAM flaws that make them a niche weapon.

I was saying that DAMAGE numbers are nice, CRAM shell velocity making them complete spaghetti is common knowledge.
They are are meant to be niche weapons, there is just no demand for something that's only good against very slow and predictable things.
Nick likes them this way so don't expect a change there.

(2018-07-16 01:27 PM)temeter Wrote:  As for the exp damage... I haven't tested it sepcifically, but can CRAM exp damage even do more than scratch a layer of armor/HA/armor? I doubt it honestly. And it sounds more like an argument for generally stronger armor, not a specific problem of a weapon system.

With the latest rework explosive damage isn't meant to be good at stripping armor(didn't play in a long time so dunno what numbers Gladyon settled with though).
HE should mostly be good when it gets below the outer armor layers, the average 11K kinetic/80AP/15K HE CRAM should be fine on that front.

(2018-07-16 01:27 PM)temeter Wrote:  You basically just say that large caliber cannons should fire slower than they are now. That could be done in many ways, from increasing reload scaling, to complexity scaling up faster for large guns, to nerfing cooldown gauges, to increasing Gun Powder scaling.

Not only large calibers, all APS should have lower RoF for the same cost.
I specifically emphasized that linear coolers would be only part of an APS adjustment, that doesn't exclude any additional reload/GP/cost/whatever change.
Current coolers are a much smaller overhead on large volume guns, on small/midsized ones you'd need LESS of them(read 1 instead of 5+ on a 20mm beltfed).

(2018-07-16 01:27 PM)temeter Wrote:  You'd need to go excessive, like the cannon to need to be 25% cooldown modules to even reach 30rpm to make a change, and building cannons that way would be a massive pain.
Tetris'ing autoloaders is fine, but fitting a kilometer-long tube of gauges into a small turrets? God fucking no!

Placing coolers is just stacking T shapes, much simpler than making sure loaders aren't stolen by another gun on the same turret. Particle cannons are annoying because they are assymetric and 1-way without branches.
Don't see why needing more coolers would be bad, although I think making coolers more effective but very expensive would be better(with a slight loader price bump).
As a reference, IMO for 500mm ~5 RPM should the norm instead of 30 in your example. Current system where volume is the main concern is kinda silly(if you want to keep cannons really cheap you just use clips).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:27 AM by temeter.)
Post: #35
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
(2018-07-16 04:10 PM)draba Wrote:  I was saying that DAMAGE numbers are nice, CRAM shell velocity making them complete spaghetti is common knowledge.
They are are meant to be niche weapons, there is just no demand for something that's only good against very slow and predictable things.
Nick likes them this way so don't expect a change there.

You say it yourself, yet you make the argument that nerfed APS would make CRAM look good in some scenario. Which I find strange, since it's not even limited to APS. Pretty sure I could build more efficient missile batteries and even lasers than I could build a CRAM cannon.

Not to mention your comparision with APS still doesn't work because you ignore that APS will, despite a potential nerf, still be powerful thanks to shields getting nerfed too.

Quote:With the latest rework explosive damage isn't meant to be good at stripping armor(didn't play in a long time so dunno what numbers Gladyon settled with though).
HE should mostly be good when it gets below the outer armor layers, the average 11K kinetic/80AP/15K HE CRAM should be fine on that front.
It wouldn't. Put the numbers into an armor calculator, at 80AP you need 13.9k kinetic to go through metal/HA/metal. APHE is just insanely wasteful by design, I doubt it'll ever be a viable alternative. It only has a role in reality because it can make small holes, yet in FTD, you gotta destroy entire beams.

Redesign HE damage limited variety and gained just about nothing.

Quote:Current coolers are a much smaller overhead on large volume guns, on small/midsized ones you'd need LESS of them(read 1 instead of 5+ on a 20mm beltfed).
I know, small beltfeds can be 70% coolers. That's partially because the autoloaders work at 5 times the speed.

But I don't see why that's a specific issue. Is there any reason why small and big guns should have a specific fraction of coolers vs autoloaders?

Quote:Placing coolers is just stacking T shapes, much simpler than making sure loaders aren't stolen by another gun on the same turret. Particle cannons are annoying because they are assymetric and 1-way without branches.
Placing coolers is a pain because they can't be placed in bulk, but rather piece by piece. Worse, any modification on the system can break the chain, and even small changes can require you to replace half of the gauge chain. And FTD is a game which is fundamentally about improving and redesigning stuff. It is always much easier to remove/add a bunch of reloaders.

Stuff like that is why I'd hate to see more relevance placed on coolers. And trying to not to mix up multiple guns on a turret? That seems like an oddly specific problem that I don't think is worth making bigger changes for.

Quote:Don't see why needing more coolers would be bad, although I think making coolers more effective but very expensive would be better(with a slight loader price bump).
As a reference, IMO for 500mm ~5 RPM should the norm instead of 30 in your example. Current system where volume is the main concern is kinda silly(if you want to keep cannons really cheap you just use clips).

Idk, your wish for RPM numbers seems to go into the realm of arbitrary preferences. Can't really argue about that.

I don't see how volume being an important concern is silly, though. Clips taking so much space is a major concern when constructing crafts, and it being filled with magazines makes it a massive weak spot that takes lots of armor - which is going to be even more of a case with nerfed shields. Some of my ships even look semi-realistic thanks to that dynamics (on the outside); something you'd never get with realistic turret sizes, considering there is no structural integrity and load bearing simulation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 02:09 PM by draba.)
Post: #36
RE: CRAMS vs APS cost vs damage
(Yesterday 11:26 AM)temeter Wrote:  You say it yourself, yet you make the argument that nerfed APS would make CRAM look good in some scenario. Which I find strange, since it's not even limited to APS. Pretty sure I could build more efficient missile batteries and even lasers than I could build a CRAM cannon.

Not to mention your comparision with APS still doesn't work because you ignore that APS will, despite a potential nerf, still be powerful thanks to shields getting nerfed too.

A simple rundown:
  • Without active defenses damage is way too high
  • If active defenses are to be made less important damage must go down
  • If everything else is nerfed below CRAM damage/cost then CRAM isn't too expensive against the things it can hit
Already said APS/PAC damage is too high a hundred times before and have a laser mod that cuts raw damage to 20% so just skipped explaining everything again.

(Yesterday 11:26 AM)temeter Wrote:  It wouldn't. Put the numbers into an armor calculator, at 80AP you need 13.9k kinetic to go through metal/HA/metal. APHE is just insanely wasteful by design, I doubt it'll ever be a viable alternative. It only has a role in reality because it can make small holes, yet in FTD, you gotta destroy entire beams.

If you want to go against really heavy armor you obviously use more kinetic and/or use less ammo boxes(seriously, duh).
120 hardener with 20 sec reload has ~20K damage and ~205 AP, 60 hardener/40 HE 14K damage, 115 AP and still 10K HE.
The point stands, CRAM numbers are in the right ballpark and you actually have to think about what boxes you use depending on your target.

APHE is really, really far from pointless on CRAMs. Just look at the battleship brawl season 3, people not using kinetic + HE/frag payload got stomped.
With the added air dissipation armor should be even better against explosions, so you have to get below armor for HE to work properly.
Note that in confined spaces HE also gets a damage boost, depending on how many target blocks are occupied in its current iteration.
Obvious disclaimer is that shields/evasion make all cannons bad.

(Yesterday 11:26 AM)temeter Wrote:  Idk, your wish for RPM numbers seems to go into the realm of arbitrary preferences. Can't really argue about that.

Again, APS needs a big damage cut if shields aren't meant to be mandatory. Since screwing with damage numbers dicks over penetration RoF is the obvious candidate.
The actual cut is an educated guess based on similar tinkering with lasers and the comparison with CRAM, not me loving lower RoF for some silly reason.


Coolers aren't that relevant here so just the notes:
- If you have long chains you fucked up, just split after the firing piece into hovewer many branches you need(also easy to extend)
- Placing them isn't hard in any shape or form
- They are a pain on already bad small guns, irrelevant on large ones(you just spam loaders and split up when complexity makes it practical)
- Clips going supernova is something that comes up a lot, the main reason why good designs almost always use loader-only setups since 2.0
- Multicannon turrets aren't oddly specific in FtD
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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