Introduction:



Disharmony has completely revamped many of the core combat systems- most notably the changes to accuracy, the introduction of Evasion, and the subdivision of each weapon type into long, medium, and melee range modules. This post will focus on the last of these three topics- It was a brilliant idea and a step in the right direction, but in it's current form it is still incomplete.



Over this post I will compare and contrast the three weapon types and the relative merits of each of each weapon's 3 module "range settings" as well as discuss the impacts certain other changes have on this system.



ALL THE MATH BEHIND MY ANALYSIS IS PRESENTED IN THE SECOND POST





The Good:



First I'd like to discuss parts of the new weapon modules system that were done right and have contributed well the the strategic decisions of which weapons module to use.



Fundamentally the option to specialize weapons is a good thing- it breaks up the monotony of ship design by adding an extra level of specialization to ships.



The chief area this decision really has a large impact is however not in the weapon stats themselves but rather in battle cards. The "Short circuit" and "Weapons Overclock" battle cards give accuracy bonuses to long and melee range weapons respectively. In this way choice of weapon's "range setting" has a definite quantifiable impact on gameplay- by changing the strength of certain battle cards, it will likely influence what sort of battle strategies players use. Conversely players who desire to use a certain lineup of battle action will be encouraged to choose the appropriate weapons module.



The Bad:



Next I'll examine a few problems with the current system.



Problem 1:



The weapon modules stats themselves don't really lead to any real tactical differentiation between range settings. The problem is that the accuracy, projectiles fired, tonnage cost, damage, and reload time stats(every variable stat appearing on weapons modules) are all multiplicative damage increases with each other. This means a weapon with .75 accuracy hits 1.5x as often(and deals 150% average damage) as a weapon with .5 accuracy in all three battle phases- that is to say accuracy is an equally strong stat in all three battle phases. The same exact properties hold for dmg, projectiles fired, and tonnage cost.





So for any given weapon type the same "range setting" is superior at all ranges. For example for beams medium range beams evaluated on a per tonnage point basis deal more damage then their melee/long range counterparts in all three phases of battle.



I ran the numbers on each weapon in the game(which will be presented in the second post), and here's the short version:

• Kinetics: long range modules deal the most average damage per battle phase per tonnage point cost at weapons level 2 and 3 and melee range is a very close second. Melee range deals the most at weapons level 1(by a significant margin. Medium range sucks at all levels.
• Missiles: Long range missiles deal the most average damage per phase per tonnage point cost at all weapon tech levels(by a significant margin). Medium range is in 2nd, and melee range missiles are worst at all 3 weapons tech levels.
• Beams: Medium range beams deal the most average average damage per phase per tonnage point cost at all weapon tech levels by an enormous margin(almost twice as much as long/short range beams). Melee range beams are second best at all three weapons tech levels. one notable aspect of long range beams though is that with 1.2 base accuracy the first -17% accuracy penalties enemies apply result in no damage loss.
• 
  
  

It's also worth noting that missiles deal the most average damage per battle phase per tonnage of the three weapon types at every weapons tech level. Medium range beams are only slightly behind at weapons tech level 1 but at weapons tech levels 2 and 3 missiles have almost double the damage output per tonnage of any beam/kinetic weapon- which is odd being that missiles get their highest damage right at the start of the battle(long range phase) rather then having to survive to their prime time like lasers/kinetics.



[EDIT]: Also note that the 1.2 accuracy on long range beams does mean they perform a bit better then the numbers below would imply as that extra .2 will be deducted immediately from enemy evasion and will compound with each hit you do take. Thanks to Stalker0 for pointing out this tidbit I'd overlooked!





Problem 2:



This one is inherited from vanilla, but the weapon types still aren't really differentiated enough from one another. Even if the current weapons range settings were change so that each range setting on a weapon were better then it's counterparts at that range(so for example if melee range missiles were actually better at melee range then medium/long ranged missiles), a problem still remains "why choose melee range missiles rather then melee range kinetics?" if Melee range kinetics do more damage there's not a lot of incentive to build melee range of the other weapon types- but conversely if all weapons types of a given range setting are equally strong there's no real differentiation between weapon types besides the projectiles they shoot and which type of defenses the opponent's ships have.



This issue is a lot less pressing then problem 1, but I'd really like to see the decision of which type of weapons to build be more tactical then "what defenses do my enemy's ships not have?".







The Ugly:



The problems addressed above has a few hurdles involved in addressing them- I'll discuss those hurdles now.



Problem 1:



The problems discussed above are extremely subversive. Without adding new effects to the weapon modules or fundamentally changing how some of the combat mechanics work the problem will persist.



It would be easy to balance the weapon "range settings' to all have equal damage per phase per tonnage. While that would balance the weapon range settings against one another it would also make the choice of range setting a non-decision as each range setting would basically do the same average damage in each battle phase. The only difference would be high accuracy weapons would be more reliable and low accuracy weapons more bursty.



The only way choice of weapon range setting will ever really be a strategic decision is if each range setting has strengths and weaknesses- situations in which is it superior to it's counterparts. This simply cannot be accomplished with the current stats appearing on weapons as each of these stats are a multiplicative stacking percentile increase to average damage in all phases.



Problem 2:



This issue is significantly easier to address, but doing so will complicate balance even further. All that's needed is the inclusion of bonuses or some form of intrinsic advantage to weapon modules, with the specific bonus being different for each weapon type(missiles, beams, & kinetics). But again this could add more complications to balance(which we should avoid before addressing the current ones.









Solutions and Ideas:





Problem 1:



The most obvious immediate temporary fix as discussed in "The Ugly" is to normalize each range setting's avg dmg/phase/tonnage for a given weapon type. Perhaps have melee range kinetics and all long range weapons have a bit lower avg dmg/phase/tonnage to compensate for the fact that those particular weapons get extra benefits on certain already powerful battle actions.



But this is a tempoary fix- it makes none of the weapon range settings objectively inferior as they are now, but it doesn't do anything to make the choice of weapon range setting more strategic.







Problem 2:



Problem 2 is more easily addressed if less pressing. Add something to each weapon to further differentiate it for the others and make it better suited to certain ship designs then the others. one of the following for each weapon type should do nicely:



Kinetics:

• Kinetics give bonus flak & point defense during first round of battle(helps close range kinetic fleets close the distance)
• Reduce dmg on all kinetics weapons by maybe 35%, but all kinetic volleys target 2 enemies rather then just one
  
  

Beams:

• Beams receive 1.5x damage bonus from any Support(power) modules(make this modification on power modules rather then modifying the beam modules directly)
• Beams always have travel time .5(hit before even travel time 1 projectiles) regardless of range setting
  
  

Missiles:

• Missiles ignore half of enemy ship's evasion(homing quality?)
• Missiles give higher damage output then other weapons but cost substantially more industry to build(so best suited for production heavy races)
• Enemies hit by missiles suffer -12% accuracy in the next combat phase(good for high evasion fleets)
  
  

Conclusion:



Anyway, been thinking about this for a few days and thought it was time I shared it with the community. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the merits and problems of the current weapons module system, particularly in regards to whether choosing the range settings of a given weapon type is a sufficiently strategic decision.



I'd also like to conclude that while my "The Bad" section at a glance is significantly larger then "The good" section that I don't intend this to be a complain or bash thread on the game. The devs have created an amazing game- my love of it is exactly the reason I'm willing to sit down and spend several hours running the calculations and composing this thread. The game is already great, but with some systemic changes I believe it could be even better.



Well that's all for now, post your thoughts, and by all means point out any math/module stat errors.

Calculations:



In essence the average damage per phase per hull point of a module is as simple as (accuracy)*(projectiles fired)*(damage)*(number of times fired per phase)/(tonnage)



Evasion is ommited from these calculations as it affects all weapon types/ranges about equally(though the lower tonnage modules lose a bit less damage) and is multiplicative.



Long ranges weapons are fired 1 time per phase, medium range weapons are fired 2 times per phase, and melee weapons are fired 4 times per phase.



I round each result to the first decimal space. I ran all these calculations fairly quick(will check later)- if anyone notices any errors, please point them out so I may correct them- the calculations are not difficult but they were rather exhausting to run and keep organized-between that and the long transcription to a forum post the possibility of careless errors is significant.



[Noteforlongrangelasersthemultiplierusedisactually1.0not1.2asyoucan'thavemorethen100%accuracy-theextra.2reducesenemyevadeabit,theeffectsofwhicharehardertoquantify-soLongrangebeamswillperformabitbetterthenthenumbersbelowimply.]



The best dmg/phase per tonnage of each weapon type/tech level will be bolded.





Weapons tech level 1:



long range kinetics(level 1): .7 accuracy|35 dmg| 5 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 13.6 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range kinetics(level 1): .3 accuracy|14 dmg|15 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 11.5 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range kinetics(level 1):[/B] .5 accuracy| 2 dmg| 30 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 17.1 avg dmg/phase per tonnage



long range beams(level 1): 1.2(1) accuracy|30 dmg| 3 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 8.2 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range beams(level 1):[/B] .7 accuracy|11 dmg| 8 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 17.6 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range beams(level 1): 1 accuracy| 1 dmg|25 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 11.1 avg dmg/phase per tonnage



long range missiles(level 1):[/B] 1 accuracy|150 dmg|1 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 21.4 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range missiles(level 1): .5 accuracy| 55 dmg|3 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 18.3 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range missiles(level 1) : .9 accuracy| 5 dmg|8 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 13.1 avg dmg/phase per tonnage





Weapons tech level 2:



long range kinetics(level 2):[/B] .7 accuracy|70 dmg| 8 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 43.6 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range kinetics(level 2): .3 accuracy|25 dmg| 28 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 38.2 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range kinetics(level 2): .5 accuracy| 1 dmg| 150 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 42.9 avg dmg/phase per tonnage



long range beams(level 2): 1.2(1) accuracy|100 dmg| 3 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 27.3 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range beams(level 2):[/B] .7 accuracy| 20 dmg| 12 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 48 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range beams(level 2): 1 accuracy| 2 dmg|36 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 32 avg dmg/phase per tonnage



long range missiles(level 2):[/B] 1 accuracy|600 dmg| 1 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage||85.7 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range missiles(level 2): .5 accuracy|200 dmg| 3 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage||66.7 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range missiles(level 2) : .9 accuracy| 15 dmg|10 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage||49.1 avg dmg/phase per tonnage







Weapons Tech Level 3



long range kinetics(level 3):[/B] .7 accuracy|30 dmg| 50 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 116.7 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range kinetics(level 3): .3 accuracy|15 dmg|100 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 81.8 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range kinetics(level 3): .5 accuracy| 2 dmg|200 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 114.3 avg dmg/phase per tonnage



long range beams(level 3): 1.2(1) accuracy|150 dmg| 4 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 54.5 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range beams(level 3):[/B] .7 accuracy| 38 dmg| 12 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 91.2 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range beams(level 3): 1 accuracy| 2 dmg|60 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 53.3 avg dmg/phase per tonnage



long range missiles(level 3): [/B] 1 accuracy|900 dmg| 2 projectiles|fired 1 time(s)/phase| 7 tonnage|| 257.1 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

med range missiles(level 3): .5 accuracy|375 dmg| 5 projectiles|fired 2 time(s)/phase| 9 tonnage|| 208.3 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

melee range missiles(level 3) : .9 accuracy| 45 dmg|10 projectiles|fired 4 time(s)/phase|11 tonnage|| 147.3 avg dmg/phase per tonnage

Try using a spreadsheet or GoogleDocs to keep your calculations in a more manageable fashion. You can also use it to format tables and just copy & paste them rather that doing it all by hand.

thuvian wrote:
Try using a spreadsheet or GoogleDocs to keep your calculations in a more manageable fashion. You can also use it to format tables and just copy & paste them rather that doing it all by hand.

good point- I'll see about converting it all once I've had some time to rest.

bilun wrote:
Calculations:



Evasion is ommited from these calculations as it affects all weapon types/ranges about equally(though the lower tonnage modules lose a bit less damage) and is multiplicative.

That's not true for long range beams i believe. The 1.2 accuracy means that effectively the first 20% of evasion has no impact. I would wager that would make long range beams a bit more competitive.

In the dev blog post they link to a google doc version of the weapons table, you can make of copy of that and save a ton of time.



Accuracy is... a strange thing. With the new dodge allowances and the 75% reduction in evasion loss, plus accuracy not being fully document yet, makes it a problem.

Stalker0 wrote:
That's not true for long range beams i believe. The 1.2 accuracy means that effectively the first 20% of evasion has no impact. I would wager that would make long range beams a bit more competitive.

Good point- I had overlooked that particularity. That said, I stand by my previous analysis(I doubt the 20% subtracted evade will compensate for 40% less damage)- but the gap is smaller then I'd thought; I'll add a note of it to the OP.

Well i just noticed the new beta patch notes- looks like my analysis was mostly obsolete at the time of it's composition



Weapons could still use more diversification- but the beta patche's new accuracy changes should do wonders for problem 1.

Well, most of the analysis regarding Disharmony makes my brain melt.. So many numbers, so much confusion. But i guess figuring it all out is part of the fun :P



Could anyone make me an example of when it`s beneficial to use anything else than rockets at long range, beams at medium and kinect when melee?

Reading this, it seem i will have lots of work when i start porting my Fair Fight mod to Disharmony... But i don't think it will be too hard to do.

Interesting. I hope the dev's look at this thread, even if some of the stuff is outdated.