Sample things that would help kinetics out:



-Weakening beam

-Increasing HP of all hulls (more HP means more likely to survive to 3rd phase and lowers effectiveness of having "first strike" with missiles/beams)

-Increasing accuracy (I think the best way to do this would be drastically increasing its 2nd phase accuracy, increasing from 40% to 70%, so you'd have 20/70/90% accuracy at L/M/S range, this would make kinetics a threat at medium ranges)

-Improving the cards for kinetics and weakening battle cards that go against kinetics (e.g. Weapon Overclock increases salvo instead of damage, Magnetic field improving kinetic defense from 40% to only 20%)



Just having 2 of these I think would be enough to help out kinetics a lot

Dementophobic wrote:
Sample things that would help kinetics out:



-Weakening beam

Per tier, kinetics do more damage then beams.



So rather have beams possibly cost more strategic resources?

-Increasing HP of all hulls (more HP means more likely to survive to 3rd phase and lowers effectiveness of having "first strike" with missiles/beams)

I agree, possibly more HP on the armour mods as well.

-Increasing accuracy (I think the best way to do this would be drastically increasing its 2nd phase accuracy, increasing from 40% to 70%, so you'd have 20/70/90% accuracy at L/M/S range, this would make kinetics a threat at medium ranges)

I agree, perhaps to 95% on melee as well?

-Improving the cards for kinetics and weakening battle cards that go against kinetics (e.g. Weapon Overclock increases salvo instead of damage, Magnetic field improving kinetic defense from 40% to only 20%)



Just having 2 of these I think would be enough to help out kinetics a lot

I am not sure about the cards too much, possibly decrease the basic value and buff the counter value?

Dementophobic wrote:
Sample things that would help kinetics out:



-Weakening beam

I would level the playign field by making Energy Absorption (like Camo but for beams) come about earlier. If not, than reduce beam's accuracy in Long and Melee ranges

Dementophobic wrote:
-Increasing HP of all hulls (more HP means more likely to survive to 3rd phase and lowers effectiveness of having "first strike" with missiles/beams)

Could be solved by some minor armor on defense modules in general and not limited to support mods.

Dementophobic wrote:
-Increasing accuracy (I think the best way to do this would be drastically increasing its 2nd phase accuracy, increasing from 40% to 70%, so you'd have 20/70/90% accuracy at L/M/S range, this would make kinetics a threat at medium ranges)

I agree. Increasing accuracy on the 2nd phase would be logical from 40% but 70% is too large. Snipers would make it too effective for that phase and it could possibility upstage beams because of the base and critical damage.

Perhaps 70% is too much, but it has to be a reasonably high number to make kinetics a threat during the second phase. Maybe have it 60% on middle range and 95% in melee range, as Ign said.



Armour mods are not nearly as good as defense mods right now since it is always better to take no damage instead of some damage, and healing is incredibly slow too. Perhaps just buffing these and leaving hull default HP alone could work too (reduce ind/tonnage cost of them).

Per tier, kinetics do more damage then beams.



So rather have beams possibly cost more strategic resources?

I rather add a strategic resource (anti-matter?) to a tier 3 or tier 4 kinetic weapon so people have access to a low-industry kinetic weapon early on, just like kinetics and missiles have.

I would level the playign field by making Energy Absorption (like Camo but for beams) come about earlier. If not, than reduce beam's accuracy in Long and Melee ranges

I am not sure about the cards too much, possibly decrease the basic value and buff the counter value?

Both of these work well.

LordReynolds wrote:
funny....



dust warheads turn kinteics into murder tools at any range....

...They also do that with missiles.

Ehhhh, missiles are counter far to easily by flak.



1 flak to 3 missiles isn't a good tonnage ratio when compared to the utter carnage that can be done with kinetics when done right.

Igncom1 wrote:
Ehhhh, missiles are counter far to easily by flak.



1 flak to 3 missiles isn't a good tonnage ratio when compared to the utter carnage that can be done with kinetics when done right.

You're forgetting that if Missile does it through your Flak, you're hosed seven ways from Sunday. Besides, I've found Flak to be right in the middle in terms of effectiveness (Not as awesome as Deflectors, not as worthless as Shields).



Just to be sure, I had been playing a series of games (Before the latest add-on) and in all but one circumstance, Kinetics consistently do the worst overall (Kills per death). If using a Battleship/Cruiser based army, Missiles perform best, then Beam, then Kinetic. If using Dreadnaughts, Beam becomes the best, then Kinetic, then Missile. Haven't had a go with the small (1CP) class of ships yet, but I'd expect they mimic the Battleship/Cruiser example.

Romeo wrote:
You're forgetting that if Missile does it through your Flak, you're hosed seven ways from Sunday. Besides, I've found Flak to be right in the middle in terms of effectiveness (Not as awesome as Deflectors, not as worthless as Shields).

Err I consider it to be different, Deflectors being the worst, Shields in the middle and Flak the best.



Missiles are designed so if a few make it through then they absolutely murder.

Just to be sure, I had been playing a series of games (Before the latest add-on) and in all but one circumstance, Kinetics consistently do the worst overall (Kills per death). If using a Battleship/Cruiser based army, Missiles perform best, then Beam, then Kinetic. If using Dreadnaughts, Beam becomes the best, then Kinetic, then Missile. Haven't had a go with the small (1CP) class of ships yet, but I'd expect they mimic the Battleship/Cruiser example.

Kinetics have terrible accuracy, so that's understandable.



Generally beams are best against small and medium class ships, missiles against the largest ships (Less over kill).

Dropping some math.

While writing a combat "simulator" to balance a mod, i've mathed out all the weapon's damage.

The following table is the weapon's average damage, weighted against industry cost (at 5). The rows are the tech levels.



[code]Damage table:COST

LongRangePhase:

Kin Las Mis

29 - -

24 - 140

24 45 124

21 45 119

22 46 141

25 49 154

34 58 150

36 67 169

38 73 201

MediumRangePhase:

Kin Las Mis

60 - -

49 - 109

48 81 96

43 81 93

45 83 109

51 88 120

68 105 116

73 122 131

76 132 156



ShortRangePhase:

Kin Las Mis

135 - -

111 - 62

109 62 55

97 62 53

101 64 62

115 69 68

153 81 66

166 94 75

171 103 89

[/code]

This is the table with no industry cost weighting: http://pastebin.com/fRy0WPay

Defenses aren't included, but as we all know, lasers have BY FAR the best ability to break defenses.

By the way, the first laser (and the first missile, and some other) should be multiplied by 1.42 to account for the "Strategic Resource Monopoly" bonus.

Igncom1 wrote:
Err I consider it to be different, Deflectors being the worst, Shields in the middle and Flak the best.



Missiles are designed so if a few make it through then they absolutely murder.

And invariably, some always do make it through. That's one of the two biggest reasons Missiles excel as much as they do. If you're defence is 90% effective against Kinetics or Shields, you shrug off 90% of the damage you would've otherwise taken. If your defence is 90% effective against Missile, you get blown up.

Igncom1 wrote:


Kinetics have terrible accuracy, so that's understandable.



Generally beams are best against small and medium class ships, missiles against the largest ships (Less over kill).

Oh, I know they have terrible accuracy, and I think that's the only thing holding them back from being truly competitive against Beam and Missile. A minor bump in Mid-Range accuracy and a significant bump at Long-Range accuracy might give them some usefulness, even if the opponent retreats/has good defences/is brimming with Missiles.

The problem, as I see it, is that most people don't see kinetics doing much... that is because they are strongest in the melee stage, and late game... most battles don't get to the melee stage, and most games don't last long enough for kinetics to really get into their prime.

So, the problem is not kinetics, it's that either missiles and beams are too strong because they mostly finish things too early; or the defences for missiles and beams are too weak; or the majority of players are not using enough defences for missiles and beam, so it never gets to melee. Imho, it's a mixture of all 3, but mainly the failure of most AI ships to have adequate defences. The AI having glass cannon, encourages the player to do the same, and the culture becomes, "ok, so I lose a few Destroyers, so what, I can build more"... trouble with that is that it becomes relatively easy to beat them with ships with fairly light defences that last many battles (none of which are likely to last until melee phase). Once you have that fleet with ships that are experienced, and with a high level hero, they become virtually invincible. So the problem is not so much that kinetics are too weak, it's that they never get used as they are intended (in melee phase).



So, what's the solution? Considering the above, buffing kinetics will make no difference, as most battles don't get to melee phase. What is really needed is to nerf missiles and beams a little, so that they don't do quite as much damage in the early and middle game, so that more battles go to melee phase... that will also encourage more defences, as they will be slightly more effective. However, the devs will need to get the AI producing more balanced ships (balanced in the sense of offence and defence) too, and they will prove much more of a challenge, compared to what we face now, which will improve the game considerably!

Well, the biggest problem is that battles don't last long enough for kinetics to play a role, so perhaps the Defenses could made to better accommodate that? Right now things play like rock-paper-scissors, but what if each defense type could work to some extent against each weapon type?



EG:



100% defense against preferred weapon

66% defense against neutral weapon

33% defense against wrong weapon



Flak: Excels against missiles, but has some effectiveness against kinetic weapons. Very ineffective against energy weapons, especially lasers.

Shields: Best against energy, works against missiles, weak to kinetics. Kinetic weaponry is heavy enough to pass through shields, but missiles are too light so they detonate prematurely, weakening their effect since the blast won't fully reach the target.

Armor: Performs well against kinetic, but also dissipates the energy of energy to some degree. Has minimal resistance to explosives.

Defences cannot defend against 2 weapon types.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors



This is the design discussion forum, in which people make suggestions for how to better improve the gameplay. This implies changing things, hence a suggestion to alter the rock-paper-scissors mechanics without eliminating them. In theory, this would make it more likely for battles to last into the melee phase, because ships are surviving the long-range and medium-range phases due to all defenses playing a part in the proceedings.

Igncom1 wrote:
Defences cannot defend against 2 weapon types.

But Ign it is not obvious that shooting down those 24" slugs with flak cannons completely and totally makes sense... yeah... on the other hand, im looking forward to when they change combat and make it more in depth in ship customization and shooting big metal things at each other.

Digitalhawk96 wrote:
But Ign it is not obvious that shooting down those 24" slugs with flak cannons completely and totally makes sense... yeah... on the other hand, im looking forward to when they change combat and make it more in depth in ship customization and shooting big metal things at each other.

Well the game does turn all of the defences into shields anyway!



But that was more of a comment on what in the game can't be changed.

What ign is saying is that without re-writing how the game works, it isn't possible. It's not as simple as a quick code-change, as the XMLs for defence don't work when given multiple roles (You can try this by making a very rudimentary mod and trying to change the second Deflector mod, it will simply remove it from the UI).



I've seen quite a number of people bring up that Kinetics work just peachy in round three, but that battles don't make it there. That's only part of the problem. A bigger issue is to remember that Missiles and Beam don't suddenly disappear in Melee, and I've found they even tend to outperform Kinetic at that point. Calling shenanigans? Allow me to clarify:



Let's assume your uber-powerful Kinetic fleet will kill ten ships for every ten ships you have at optimum range. Let's assume your opponent's pathetic Missiles can only take out five ships for every ten ships they have at optimum range. Clearly the Kinetic fleet is going to MAUL the Missile fleet if it gets to Melee, right? Wrong.



Round one: The Kinetics will fire, and do practically no damage to the Missile ships. The Missile ships fire and manage to take out five ships. That means in round two, there's twice as many Missiles concentrating on each opponent, which means even if half the salvo misses, sheer volume of fire will make up the difference. This then compounds even further by the time Melee rolls around. If your opponent only has a couple ships left, it doesn't matter how inaccurate the Missiles are at that point, they will simply overwhelm with concentrated fire. This above example applies slightly less to Beams, but still tends to result in the same obliteration of Kinetics along the same points (Perhaps delayed by a single round over Missile).



Upping damage on Kinetics wont mean anything. Weakening Missiles and Beam risks rendering them useless. The way to get Kinetics to be useful is to bump up their "non-optimal" ranges, in my books. This would turn them in to the high-risk, high-reward weapon some claim them to already be. If Kinetics could do enough damage to soften up an opponent at long-range, then gut some of them in Mid-Range, it would make Melee far more survivable for them. The ships would have to toy with death, as they'd need to survive two rounds of damage before getting some kills in (As opposed to now, where they need to last all three). Without overwhelming numbers of enemies, Kinetics might actually have a chance in Melee phase as a result.

hmm... I don't think I agree with going down the all defences affect other weapons channel... we'll end up only needing one type of defence and I can see the board being full of "which defensive weapon gives me the best overall defence?" threads... I prefer to stick to what we have, it's more interesting, and requires more thought.

The_Quasar wrote:
and requires more thought.

yes. .send a scout force to engage and and look up what the enmy is fielding.. and then adapt an attack force to that.



so much thought. the braincells surely hurt after this one....

LordReynolds wrote:
yes. .send a scout force to engage and and look up what the enmy is fielding.. and then adapt an attack force to that.



so much thought. the braincells surely hurt after this one....

Surely that's better than having one defence that's best, and consequently one attack weapon that's best against it?