ørret wrote:
This is good point. Instead of just having the one superior (beam) weapons category as it is now the weapons should have their own features. Beam weapons doing little damage but with 100% accuracy, Kinetics with little accuracy but with good damage and beeing very hard to deflect and Missles with devastating damage but comparatively easy to defend against.

This is practically how it is with 1.14.

I have now found three discussions where it is claimed that the L8 missile is superior to the L9 missile. According to my math, it is not. Please check my calculation here:



/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/9399-fixing-the-ai-bis-ships-would-be-a-huge-improvement

Agree with Zutonix. I just spent an hour or so refitting a fleet and looking for the number of flak necessary to stop missiles. It is 1 to 1ish.



In later game, missiles are all I am seeing on AI ships. Me thinks the AI gravitates to the L8 missile during its BIS calculation.

Apheirox wrote:
The high-damage level 8 missiles have a 0% chance to crit unlike all other missiles.

...



I will keep looking but nothing I've seen of 1.14 so far suggests missiles are the new unbeatable weapon.

Almost every hit of a level 8 missile is a critical hit. It only takes 1 to down a 1 or 2 CP ship and 2 to kill a 4CP ship.



The AI was putting 21 of them on his ships and ignoring level 9 missiles. They would kill my ships every time (in over 90 battles) in spite of 14 layers of Flack and 6 layers of armour.



It might be that they were trying to compensate for the lack of critical hit, but they went way, way overboard. Camo, Weapons Disruption and the one for -15% accuracy have no effect - you die every time. Even admirals only save 1 or 2 ships from destruction.



And when THEY have an admiral, the MP for them goes from 3528 to 5900!

The high-damage level 8 missiles have a 0% chance to crit unlike all other missiles.



*



First off, I won't claim to be some kind of expert on this. Frankly I find it intensely frustrating that missiles/flak is so poorly explained. A dev explained some of the mechanics on how it works in a recent post while at the same time saying he preferred to keep some 'mystery' to how it works. Plain and simple this is an idiotic stance - mystery doesn't keep things interesting, just irritating. Not understanding the rules of a strategy game doesn't make it better - and even less so when the game is already so poorly documented with a manual that lacks any form of depth.



When I said that rules are the same as before and there are still three interceptions it is because it is exceedingly unlikely they would change them for several reasons. I don't know, however, much like I doubt anybody outside the Amplitude team knows down to the last detail how it works, and so I shouldn't have been so categorical as in the statement you quoted - that I regret. However let's consider:



1) They drastically changed the interception values. Would it make sense that they would at the same time completely change missile rules?



2) From the dev's post it becomes clear that there isn't a guarantee, just a chance (albeit a good chance) to intercept from flak - it's a dice roll. Consequently no amount of flak ensures you can never get hit. It is possible you were simply very unlucky in your posted example. I didn't dig into the math in detail but I got the impression that while you are virtually guaranteed to kill off a single missile with a flak module of equal level (around ~97%, the flak targetting the same missile during all three rounds), the chance of the flak to succeed in its roll during all three rounds is obviously lower and hence the chance to intercept three missiles with one flak aren't as high. In short: The statement that flak beats three missiles is wrong, but it's probably, however, pretty close - flak more likely beats something like ~2.5 missiles (but up to three).



3) If flak doesn't thoroughly beat missiles the whole combat system is automatically broken. I talked to a guy on Steam forums who insists that flak only counters missiles 1:1. In a such system there is no point in ever equipping any other loadout than missiles since doing so means the opponent *must* spend all his tonnage on flak or lose his ships. I doubt the Amplitude programmers are blind to this fact and thus flak must be beating multiple missiles. If missiles don't have a strong counter when they are the longest ranged weapon the whole rock-paper-scissor system is killed.



I will keep looking but nothing I've seen of 1.14 so far suggests missiles are the new unbeatable weapon.

Yes there were heroes involved and they did much better esp with ultimate Defense.



Upon further research, I am pretty sure there is a bug in the level 8 missile stats.

Level 7 == 300 Min Damage / 420 Max Damage

Level 8 == 300 Min Damage / 1000 Max Damage

Level 9 == 500 Min Damage / 620 Max Damage



The level 8 stats are clearly out of line, and with 20-23 of them on ship, they will kill you every time no matter what barring Hero magic. It is probably supposed to be 400/520.



And once the AI gets them they will use them even after they learn level 9 weapons.

What about the hero situation in that battle, were there any? Since the missile evasion bonus changes to fleet heroes I mean.



I did an experiment last game with some kinetics, and jumped up the tech tree to railguns early to do so. even with a level 15 fleet guy I didn't see a lot of effectiveness over my ships packing lasers.



In fact the more I play I find the ship weapons quite bland in endless overall - has there been a call anywhere for say, tactics cards played that close range quickly with smaller ships or perhaps specialized projectile weapons (like a big long range cannon as opposed to the machine gun model).

Apheirox wrote:
I've seen several people claim missiles are OP now but I don't see how it's the case. You say missile interception is nerfed but it wasn't nerfed more than that if you maintain tech parity and use flak of equal level to opponent's missiles, they still intercept same as pre-patch. You can even be slightly behind in tech but have them boosted sufficiently to intercept by a hero.

I ran into a bunch of 3528/4CP missile boat fleets with 700-800 flack. My ships had 13-15 flacks. I think his fleets were produced en masse for a war with someone else because they were all like 35468 MP.



Simply with the accuracy advantage of flack (340) over those missiles (250 evasion), my flacks should be adequate to the 15 missiles. They are not. However many of these 3528 ships were in the fleet that is how many ships I lost. In a good battle, I'd loose N-1.



Pre patch flack was thought to intercept 3x missiles. Were that true now, my 13 flacks should handle up to 39 missiles. They cannot. I lost N or N-1 ships regularly and almost without exception over the course of 92 battles (yes, 92). Tatics did not make an appreciable difference.



Further, while the top end missile has impressive critical hit chances, the one or 2 getting thru ought not to have killed, but only damaged my ships (the numbers: the missiles have like 640 max damage points, my ships had 3500+ HP from XP, armor and such yet they died every time). the regularity was such that it cannot be from critical hits alone (damage should have been mitigated from tactical cards as well!)



The problem is that the flack was only registering a 66-72% accuracy. So more like 4-5 were getting thru which is borderline enough to kill; but they killed rather than severely damaged so regularly that the missile power overwhelms flack and chance and tactics.



I think Missiles are over powered or flack under powered. You'd need about 20-25 layers of flack to counter such a ship and thats silly. I'd rather like to see missile accuracy drop to 50% or such once the ship who launched it dies (these have to be guided missiles in the year 3000+). Since all my hits were taken as the enemy lie dying an agony and a second before the battle ends, this would level it out a bit.

Apheirox wrote:
I've seen several people claim missiles are OP now but I don't see how it's the case. You say missile interception is nerfed but it wasn't nerfed more than that if you maintain tech parity and use flak of equal level to opponent's missiles, they still intercept same as pre-patch. You can even be slightly behind in tech but have them boosted sufficiently to intercept by a hero.

Pretty much what I am seeing with missiles. The Boost to interception by Hero level and by Ship Experience level is TOO great. I rarely lose a ship that has any kind of hero in the fleet. Routinely, I can take out my new built level 3 fleet with no hero and with 500 flak and face down a 2000+ missile threat and NOT ONE missile will hit. It's just not right.



But the observation that we can get to the Melee phase of battle more readily in 1.0.14 is not what I am seeing. My battles are over at the Long Range Phase Tick 1 or Tick 2. I never make it to Tick 3 of the Long Range phase; let alone the Mid-Range or Melee phase.



The only exception to what I have said above is the early game. Early missiles beat my early flak. But I suspect this is because my ship levels are low as well as my Fleet Heros. Those games are intense because you actually can get to the melee phase now and then and the card choices matter.



I suppose, what I am saying is that the defensive (and perhaps offensive) power modifiiers of ship XP and Hero XP scales to high at middle and upper levels.

I've seen several people claim missiles are OP now but I don't see how it's the case. You say missile interception is nerfed but it wasn't nerfed more than that if you maintain tech parity and use flak of equal level to opponent's missiles, they still intercept same as pre-patch. You can even be slightly behind in tech but have them boosted sufficiently to intercept by a hero.



Same as I wrote in another thread: Rules are completely unchanged compared to pre-patch except you can now no longer completely neglect researching flak upgrades. It is true, though, that missiles are uniquely able to punish somebody who neglected their research (due to the binary nature of missiles: Either a hit or a miss, no in-between).



Personally, I've found that close range is much more likely to be reached now since neither missiles nor beams are able to overwhelm defenses - the way it should be. I'm not going to pretend to be the final verdict on whether missiles are now balanced or not, but I can certainly tell the new situation is infinitely better than the old one.

Apheirox wrote:
1.14 lets melee phase be reached much more often by virtue of shield strength having been increased - what you ask for is already here.

1.14 did a lot of things. In especially some good things regarding beam weapon balance. However now missles are the new beams With the nerfed missle interception the battle tends to be decided with missles in long range phase keeping kinetics furhermore from beeing effective.



But ok i admit that i did not yet have played enough with 1.14 to have a final view on this.

1.14 lets melee phase be reached much more often by virtue of shield strength having been increased - what you ask for is already here.

BBS wrote:
I play multi only, often and here is my exp. Well guys its simple, kineticks have less acuracy during first (for most ship vital) phase. I strongly recommend to use kinetics only when u got some +sniper race trait. I like that different types of weapons have different accuracy, kinetics do more damage then missiles or beams when they hit, but even so developers should boost their damage even slightly more. After that it will be ballanced.

It wont! At least not until something happens that lets melee phase be reached more often.

I play multi only, often and here is my exp. Well guys its simple, kineticks have less acuracy during first (for most ship vital) phase. I strongly recommend to use kinetics only when u got some +sniper race trait. I like that different types of weapons have different accuracy, kinetics do more damage then missiles or beams when they hit, but even so developers should boost their damage even slightly more. After that it will be ballanced.

Igncom1 wrote:




(And possibly non specialized defenses)

You mean armor

Good, now we can work on overall game balance.



(And possibly non specialized defenses)

It seems to me a player would have no reason to ever get kinetic weapons. Missiles are nice because you can make suicide ships or just put a few on your ships to guarantee good damage later in the fight. but lasers just do whatever kinetics do but sooner, and therefore better. even if the enemy is building shields and no kinetic defense if you have equivalent levels in lasers it's still better to go lasers, as everything is dead before/at round two anyways and the kinetics would never get a chance to hit anything. If I ever put kinetics on my ships they get wrecked before they do anything useful. i have to build them almost full tank to even get close enough to do damage and it is very little damage at that.



Is there any redeeming quality to kinetics?



I think they need a huge buff.

Both are good ideas, and either could work. Implementing per-range damage would be easier, but problematic-- because there are far more available damage percents than there are accuracy percents, the likelihood that your hero/power modules/faction traits would simply overpower the penalty is rather great.



So, lowering base laser damage 10-20%, raising shield absorption ~50%, and leaving their current accuracy intact would probably be the best solution.

Shivetya wrote:
I am more to favoring beam weapons simply maintain accuracy regardless of range but simply be lower damage overall. As in, their advantage is they work equally well at any range but they do not have the same damage per ton other weapons would have. Missiles should really have no accuracy changes regardless of range. Kinetics could be made ineffective at long range or kept as is but just be silly dangerous at close range. The key to using them would be to have heavy defended ships.



Still, if I were just aiming for fun I would all weapons equally effective and let players choose what effect they want.

This is good point. Instead of just having the one superior (beam) weapons category as it is now the weapons should have their own features. Beam weapons doing little damage but with 100% accuracy, Kinetics with little accuracy but with good damage and beeing very hard to deflect and Missles with devastating damage but comparatively easy to defend against.

general_bulgarvski wrote:
Actually I think that the beams are overpowered instead of the kinnetics being underpowered. And this is very evident in the late game, when the beams are SO powerfull that they desintegrate enemy ships before the missiles can reach them.

I am more to favoring beam weapons simply maintain accuracy regardless of range but simply be lower damage overall. As in, their advantage is they work equally well at any range but they do not have the same damage per ton other weapons would have. Missiles should really have no accuracy changes regardless of range. Kinetics could be made ineffective at long range or kept as is but just be silly dangerous at close range. The key to using them would be to have heavy defended ships.



Still, if I were just aiming for fun I would all weapons equally effective and let players choose what effect they want.

ørret wrote:


Weapon Long Medium Melee Overall

Missle 90% 70% 40% 200

Beam 50% 90% 70% 210

Kinet 20% 40% 90% 150!



So Kinetics are very far behing when comparing the overall accuracy. This gets even worse when weighting the battle phases. Earlier battle phases must be weighted higher because the damage dealt there applys earlier and therefore enemy ships can get destroyed and wont do any damage in later phases. Usually all battles are decided in Long Range or Medium phase which means another severe drawback for Kinetics which will therefore never come to their full effectivity.

That's an interesting table! I think beams, especially in the long range phase need to be nerfed... hard. Another thing that would be interesting is: If beams didn't had an accuracy rating, but a damage rating (i.e. do 40% damage in the long range phase, 100% in the medium range phase, 60% in the melee phase) and a flat accuracy on top of that (90%) - then, beams were "capped" so to speak in terms of maximum damage, so they're useful, but just don't have the damage output to destroy ships (especially bigger ones) in the long-range phase.

I think its a bit of both meaning beams are way too powerful and kinetics are too weak.



With kinetics beeing extremely innacurate at long range phase even ships with extreme kinetic load can be countered easily with only a view kinetic defenses (those view rounds hitting are completely absorbed by kinetic defense).

Trying the same thing with beam weapons you will need nearly the complete space of your ship with beam defense because beam weapons are way more accurate and beam defense is much less effective than kinetic defense at long range phase.

I tried to stuff Dreadnougths with massive Kinetic loads and beam defenses but they are shot to pieces at the latest in Medium Range phase when the enemy beam weapons are most accurate.



In later games nearly every battle is decided with beam weapons (and sometimes Missles) in the long range phase. Kinetics are nearly useless.



This balancing issue becomes obvois when calculating the overall accuracy for the weapons categories:



Weapon Long Medium Melee Overall

Missle 90% 70% 40% 200

Beam 50% 90% 70% 210

Kinet 20% 40% 90% 150!



So Kinetics are very far behing when comparing the overall accuracy. This gets even worse when weighting the battle phases. Earlier battle phases must be weighted higher because the damage dealt there applys earlier and therefore enemy ships can get destroyed and wont do any damage in later phases. Usually all battles are decided in Long Range or Medium phase which means another severe drawback for Kinetics which will therefore never come to their full effectivity.



I like the "Style" of kinetics and i use them sometimes just for fun against weak opponents but when i seriously want to win a hard battle i never use kinetics.

Yeah i feel like beams should be less effective in long and short ranges.

Actually I think that the beams are overpowered instead of the kinnetics being underpowered. And this is very evident in the late game, when the beams are SO powerfull that they desintegrate enemy ships before the missiles can reach them.

Kinetics are balanced just fine as far as power goes. If you run a sniper build they can be devastating, and often times I can take people out before the Long Range is over with Kinetics.



The interesting situation I find is that for the cost per industry ratio is too high. It costs 2 times - 3 times as much industry (:industry to build Kinetics.



So why when I can get Siderite lasers at the industry costs of 38 would I pay for industry cost of 110 on Kinetics? -> Exactly, I wouldn't.

kinetics are really difficult, since by the third battle phase the battle has often been won or lost already... therefore beams, shields, missiles and flak are really the only way forward.



I would love it if kinetics were turned into full range weapons, like the weapons used in for example battlestar galactica, where you have big kinetic guns and just hammer volleys of rounds at the enemy! Kinetics are cool, they should play more of a role in ES

The accuracy of beams at long and medium range is very high, and the damage dealt is very hard to mitigate with shields so players usually just load up on beams and find it to be superior to kinetics. But with scarce resources (i.e. no hyperium) you cant make beams. On top of that, if there is a beams arms race, its very important to get anti-matter to continue to upgrade your shields so getting or denying that strategic resource is important.



The main problem I have with beams is how well they scale with +accuracy from the snipers trait. With +15% accuracy beams land 100% of the time at medium range which rips everything to shreds unless you have the superior rank shields and even then you must be teching ahead and anticipating a tech switch from kinetics/missles to beams.

Yeah, the main problem is that battles are over too quickly between evenly matched fleets, if even one side packs a serious amount of beam weaponry. Nerfing beams slightly would go a long way towards increasing the viability of kinetics. I think reducing the damage output of all weapons across the board would also be helpful - just to make battles reach the end phase a bit more often, so kinetics are able to unleash their full power.

i love my kinetics. most of my ships have about 50-60% kinetic weapons. once you get that bonus to tonage and get some larger ships you can actually kill things with kinetics at long and medium range. but then again my ships usually have like 240+ kinetics on large size ships towards the mid game.

Kinetics do deal a lot of damage, even at medium range. It isn't true they are worthless. The problem is rather, as you are nearly suggesting yourself, that beams fills the role that should be reserved for kinetics too well: It shouldn't be beams that punch right through their counter, but rather kinetics. The beams are a little too good at it as is.



Missiles get countered extremely hard by flak: One flak module defeats three missile modules, even if the missiles are technologically superior. Shields need to work a bit more like that so that a single shield module completely shuts down at least one beam module. It then falls to the deflectors to offer the least protection and be defeated (at least to a greater degree) by kinetics, rewarding kinetic for having to wait till the end phase to become useful.

That^ is hard to mod.



One method of balance would be to make energy weapons useless outside of their range.





But more towards the point, increasing their accuracy on long and medium, as well as making them fire more shots seems to work well.

I agree.

Perhaps instead of having its effectiveness be based on accuracy, we can have it based on distance to target.

Being inaccurate, Kinetic weapons are suppose to be most effective at melee range. But this also means that it's null and void at any longer distance. I also don't think its worthwhile at melee range either!!!

So perhaps if they were very accurate weapons but deal less damage over range they may be more worthwhile to use.