Alpha 7.6 - FEEDBACK: Damage/HP Balancing and Range Settings

Doesn't the Offline Protection device actually protect a base when there are not any players (belonging to that faction) in the immediate vicinity? If that's not how they work, then that doesn't sound right. In my mind, at least, that's how they should work. Also, what about SVs? Even if we do not have a CV handy to fight back against the enemy CV, shouldn't we be able to use SVs to help defend a BA from a CV attack? Again, if that's not how the game works, then that does not sound right.

I think having a CV sit just outside the turret range of a BA should be a viable strategy, so long as the tech level of the CV's weapons is superior to that of the BA's weapons. I think tech level 20 or 25 weapons should be able to out-range anything of a lower tech. Also, I am strongly of the opinion that end-game (tech level 25) player turrets and fixed weapons should be able to out-range Alien POI weapons. Players can never obtain those alien turrets, so it's not such should affect PvP combat.

Also, is there anything stopping the devs from implementing slightly different rules or stats for Single-Player vs. Multiplayer games? (Anything besides time and effort, that is?) It might come down to that in order to satisfy both the PvP crowd and the PvE crowd. Because, let's face it: EGS players generally fall into one of those two distinct groups and each have their own gripes and expectations that do not always overlap.

 

According to the latest and greatest survey, a pvp is the smallest group of players.

there is no good reason 1 lvl difference should break the game allowing someone to sit out of range of a base and blow the whole thing without taking a shot.

This is still apha, not all mechanics/features are present (ie stealth mechanics, sheilds, radar) in such would change and require the total rebalance of said range and damage. it's going to change alot and I think the devs are doing the best they can so spending every waking moment balancing something to change it again next month is moot

 

I wasn't going to bring that up. But, this is true...

Except, it probably would not be just 1 level of difference - not really. Currently, the Tech Tree progression goes from Level 1 to Level 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 25. Those are big jumps. Anyway, like you said, this is still alpha and not all mechanics/features will be the same down the road. And I seem to recall that the Tech Tree is one of those things the devs hinted at changing radically (at least according to the latest survey). Anyway, I think it'd really depend on how the devs implemented such an idea, if they implemented it at all.

And, again, I'd hope that we could use SVs to help defend a base. If a CV is sitting just out of range of a BA's weapons, would it really just continue to chip away at the BA if the BA launched a bunch of SVs that are hammering away at the CV?

Besides, I would imagine that PvP players would aim to increase their Tech Tree level (or whatever equivalent we may end up with) as soon as possible. And, among a group of several players, I'd imagine at least one of them would reach the maximum level before very long. If both factions have at least 1 player who have reached the max Tech Tree level (or equivalent), what's the harm? Neither side could out-range the other, then.

Isn't it natural for the side of war with the most resources and the better technology to have an edge over the other side? Shouldn't having higher tech weapons in EGS give a rather decisive advantage?

 

And advantage yes, but decisive advantage no. Wars are not won with tech alone. But strategy. If eleon wants to increase range then use the already existing radars to do so. That way a player can use strategy to help take down a poi (ie a quick flyby or bombing run on radar system before the hv shows up) instead of just playing with numbers until it breaks again. This is what we need more of.

 

What about the crafting requirements balance?

1. Pentaxid and other manually-collectible requirements for ammo crafting hurts UX significantly.

Pentaxid and plant fiber can not be mass-produced and the overall availability of this resources for a certain player depends on the amount of time this player can spend in the game.

At the other hand, the overall availability of magnesium, iron, copper and other ores depends on how much autominers the player have and a territory this player (or his faction) controls. Ammo and bullets are essential part of this game and it is required to rely on resources that could be mass-produced without sacrificing your life.

If ammo will rely on manually-collectible/growable resources then a result of every struggle will finally depend on the amount of time that players can spend in the game. Those who have more players in a faction or more active players will always win in this case.

If ammo will rely on mass-producible resources (common resources) only then this equates the chances of players who spend a different amount of time on the game. Thus, a result of every struggle will depend on strategy, engineering and combat skills of each player. Not only grinding time for ammo producing.

NOTE: This seems to be a good idea to make some non-essential ammo require manually-collectible resources. For example minigun bullets and minigun turret bullets. Thus, there will be an opportunity to avoid relying on manually-collectible resources for those who are not constantly maintaining plantations or collecting pentaxid.

2. Requirement of nitrocellulose and raw plastic material for ammo increases grinding factor.

The grinding factor of this game is increased a lot with this change. One of the most important features of open-world games is a freedom of actions. It was pretty fine in Empyrion before but now the farming is just required. We can't craft bullets without farming and growing plants now.

Thus a player can not even feed himself without a constant base. It was possible to play with a HV or even without a base at all before this change. They player could refill his oxygen/bullets in temporary outposts without a requirement of constant maintenance and get food via hunting. It is now impossible because hunting is impossible without farming. Farming requires a constant maintenance of your base.
A lone hunter can not even craft ammo without a base or constant visiting plant fiber and pentaxid areas.

Such a high requirements for the crafting of bullets are completely unjustified. This also limits a freedom in game process a lot.

NOTE: As for me, hunting with a rocket launcher is a way to go, but hunting with a rocket launcher looks really weird ...

3. Allowing players to grow Alien Lemon Spikes and Varon Roots will help cooking and increase variety of game process.

Planet surfaces are the most interesting part of the game since the very beginning of Empyrion (I'm here from an earliest pre-alpha). Anyways, freedom is a key issue for open-world games. Forcing players to visit planets to manually collect resources that are required to craft something is not a good idea because this limits freedom of actions.

Also, there are some beautiful plants in Empyrion that we cant grow right now. Allowing players to grow this plants (and even better - every plant of Empyrion) will make gaming process more various and make cooking reciepts independant from planet surface visiting which is also important.

 

OP only provides protection when everyone in the faction who owns the base is actually logged off. If you're away mining, exploring, raiding, etc., your base is vulnerable. I think that's how it should be, with the caveat that battles be long enough (assuming you have some defenses) that you can get back to actively defend your stuff before everything is wrecked.

Perhaps, but it is important to think about why that is. I will grant that some people are simply disinterested in PvP and always will be. But I suspect that many more only dislike it because it isn't fun. We could have a long separate discussion on why that is, but at least some of it has to be tied to the balance of prep time vs. battle time, and everything pretty much being destroyed at the end of it.

I think this could be worth exploring, but I think it needs to be looked at in the larger picture of how a player progresses. The way I play the game right now is first get to 25, and only then think about doing anything else - especially PvP. That's ok, but I think it would be a richer experience if leveling took longer but more aspects of gameplay were viable before 25. That is, however, very difficult to balance and to prevent higher level people from griefing lower level ones. Which... this is the internet, so that is exactly what happens by default.

Well, you CAN use SVs to help defend a base. Part of the reason for that is that none of the good CV weapons work on a planet, so a CV is basically a sitting duck to an SV. That... is not how it should be.

But the idea of a BA launching a "bunch" of SVs that swarm the CV... I like it, but unless you have a huge faction and all online at the time, there isn't a way to do it. Maybe the game needs an SV autopilot that can act as a wingman. That would be epic, both in gameplay and in effort to create.

I think this highlights an important point. Right now, everything is basically just about damage and range. There's not much freedom to balance and create counter play, because everything comes down to bringing the biggest, longest range, or most guns. And getting the first shot. If you look at any RTS, different units have vastly different functions, and then strategy matters. Finding a way to use and counter radars could be a great start to adding more dimensions to combat.

 

I personally would like the minigun and minigun turrets to use minigun ammo, have minigun RoF, and minigun equivalent damage and range, possibly even replacing sentry turrets or supplementing them. 15mm guns should be an intermediate step between miniguns and cannons. I'd also like to see a forward only 30mm gun for SV's, something that would fill the void between the current 15mm (aka "minigun") weapon block and railguns.

On the topic of Railguns, the ammo is ludicrously expensive now and is not worth crafting or using; 20 sathium bars for 10 bullets is painfully expensive and pasting on 4 cobalt alloy is insult to injury. By comparison, 20 steel plates makes 70 rounds of 30mm ammo and that works out to 2 iron bars. In a pure damage to weight ratio, if we were to say projectile weight is a factor, then 10 rounds of 30mm ammo would be equivalent to 1 round of railgun in damage.

Going for pure damage to materials cost, railgun ammo shouldn't be this expensive. Part of the whole point of railgun weapons in the first place is their lack of requiring a propellant and the fact that the ammo is a magnetic, electrically conductive piece of metal, for which basic iron (Maybe alloyed with sathium, like hardened plates) should be the primary component. The railguns use the same power in as a minigun (5kw) which REALLY doesn't make sense, because, again, railguns use electricity to make up for the lack of propellant in the shell. A railgun takes a lot of power, a LOT of power. Firing one should be 80-100kw minimum, with a less expensive ammunition in materials costs. If you want there to be a sathium cost, it should be in hardened plates, not in a 20 stack of pure sathium. (Edit: For clarification, to keep an iron cost in the projectile, assuming that Sathium isn't itself a hard metal so much as a metal that, when alloyed with iron, gives it significantly greater tensile, torgue, compressive, and expansive durability).

 

Yes, logically, ammo for railguns should be dirt cheap.

I've done something similar for plasma and laser weapons in my Config.ecf, having them require something on the order of 75 or 100 kW (depending on whether SV, CV or BA), making the recipes for the ammo cheaper (replaced Erestrum Gel with more readily available stuff) and produce 10 times the quantity per batch. (I started with Nogitsune's Config changes and modified them somewhat.)

Now that you mention it, I should probably do something similar for Railguns. Though, I progressed through the Tech Tree such that by the time I had the resources and motivation to build a CV and leave my start planet to look for Erestrum and Zascosium (to build them), I had already leveled enough to bypass Railguns entirely. I just don't see why I should use Railguns when weapons like Rocket Launchers, Pulse Lasers and Plasma Cannons seem much more appealing.

 

I really appreciate the increase of weapons range, it is a good step into the right direction for now.
I really hope that this is just the beginning and that view range will increase MASSIVELY and weapons range similar in the future.

What's needed next is a target lock system, which allows you to set one target and have dedicated turrets (via configuration Menu) fire at it. Best would be to have one Keybind that activates ad deactivates that fireing mode.

 

So running around in full armor (heavy with 4 armor modules) and don't feel it does anywhere near enough. It doesn't seem to do anything about the chance of getting poisoned, open wound, etc. The degradation is also ridiculous.

Also missing planets? Omicron for sure, forget what else...Akua start, SP scenario...was this a change that I missed or a bug?

 

As far as missing planets there is now a "fog of war" system in place for the system map. In order to see all of the jump points for a planet you have to visit said planet

 

This is not entirely accurate. Fiber is quite plentiful if you're on a planet with trees. There is a recipe to convert Wood Logs into lots and lots of Fiber. Chopping down just a few trees will give you enough to last a long time. One can also grow Plant Fiber, but you seem to be against that.

As for Pentaxid, the real problem is how stingy the devs have made harvesting it from crystals and from planetary deposits. A crystal only yields 1 Raw Pentaxid, which is pathetic and feels like a waste of players time. Worse, the crystals themselves are quite rare and sometimes disappear after harvesting.

And the Pentaxid ore deposits? Those feel like a joke to add insult to injury. These only seem to have about 15 or 30 units, at most. Again, it feels like a complete waste of time.

Fortunately, there is an option in Difficulty Settings called "Autominer Depletion" which you (or the server admin on multiplayer) can set to "false", allowing an unlimited amount of autominer mining per deposit. Plop an autominer down on a Pentaxid deposit and, after doing stuff and coming back later, you'll have enough to last a long time.

This is the bigger problem. Ore deposits are of limited quantity and will run out, especially on a multiplayer server. And, yes, the amount of territory a faction controls (and the resources available or unavailable on said territory) is of vital importance. In contrast, resources like Pentaxid, Fiber and most plant-based products are renewable and will never completely run out. Further, if you have enough grow plots and grow lights, the amount of territory a faction controls is rather irrelevant to resources you can grow. You can grow whatever you want, regardless of what is available for harvest in the wild in your territory.

Even ignoring the difficulty of obtaining ammo, wouldn't it still be the case that factions with more active players and more free time to spend have a big advantage over small factions with less time? (Then again, on some servers there are neutral "merchant" or "trader" factions that do not start fights as they're mostly interested in trade with other factions.)

Granted, ammo is a vital part of the game. And I agree with you that it should be easier to produce - at least in the case of higher-tier vehicle ammo. The recipes should be tweaked further. However - especially since it sounds like you don't like to craft ammo - wouldn't a better solution be to drastically increase the stack size and occurance of ammo in POI and drone loot tables?

I can agree with some of this sentiment. Ammo for higher-tier weapons like Railguns, Plasma Cannons and Pulse Lasers should definitely be easier/cheaper to produce on a larger scale and should require common resources instead of rare ones. (The availability of higher-tier weapons should be limited by the Tech Tree and the difficulty of making the weapon itself, not the ammo.) For instance, I'd really like to see Railgun ammo rely on Steel Plates and Hardened Steel Plates, which are always in abundance from deconstructing POIs.

I hadn't noticed an increased requirement of nitrocellulose or plastic for ammo and I don't have an issue with the hassle of making ammo. But I guess that my experience is different from yours because I prefer to play Single Player.

It does sound like recent changes are designed to force players to build and maintain a base of their own. But I would imagine that this is the devs' intention.

Have you tried a single-player game with the Food and Oxygen Consumption set to "Slow" in Diffulty Settings? Do you know what those options are set to on your server? If they're not set to "Slow", could you ask your admin if they'd at least consider lowering them? Though, since players have their own playstyles, perhaps we should have a new option or two in Difficulty Settings? Perhaps turning Food and/or Oxygen Consumption to "Very Slow" or "Off" should be an option? That, and maybe an option on whether it is possible to grow all harvest-able plants in grow plots?

Hunting with a rocket launcher sounds like a waste of resources to me. The ammo is not cheap and Magnesium is somewhat hard to come by. You'd probably be better off just buying food from an NPC vendor. BTW: Years ago I heard about a couple of Russians who hunted a deer with one. It was newsworthy because it was so weird and wasteful.

Granted, most prey animals in EGS can run really fast, making it hard to get enough shots in to bring them down. That's why I usually target animals that won't run away, using either the Harvester Module or turrets on my HV.

Definitely. Not being able to grow certain ingredients has been a gripe of my since the day I started playing. It's a game mechanic that I just don't understand the reasoning for. There are players like myself, who farms a lot and enjoys it, and then there are players that would rather not have to touch farming at all, either harvesting from the wild or buying from NPC vendors. Different players have different play styles and good games should encourage them instead of force a certain play style.

 

Eventually what would be nice to see is procedurally generated astroids in deeper space. The farther away from a planet you go the more rare materials can be found. Gives reasons to get up and move around while your ship is flying . And the time sink of flying farther away is your balance. Give us more to do in space.

 

That depends on how they design it, really. It would probably make the most sense if a railgun just consumed tremendous amounts of power while turned on (or at least during its firing/charging cycle), but lacking that, it's feasible that a railgun 'cartridge' might include both the bullet and some form of power booster that acts like a battery for the railgun providing part of the charge.

EVE has an interesting ammo system called 'hybrid' ammo, which is basically two-part ammo containing an energy component and a physical component, and it is used for both particle energy weapons, and solid weapons, where in the former case the energy is the attack and the physical mass is broken down into a particle form, and the latter is essentially a railgun slug assembled like a modern bullet where it contains its own charge.

A railgun, as far as any modern examples suggest, consumes immense power, and while the round itself can essentially be a solid metal ball (or a melon-shape, in the case of something like the Gauss weapons in Battletech), the huge energy cost also has to be factored. That either has to come from the ship, or some kind of external power charge that could potentially be coupled to the ammo.

 

Gonna just throw this out there, but a single pentaxid asteroid has 1200-1500 crystals. I literally mined out one, and haven't needed to harvest any since. And I use lasers on the ground constantly, they're too good not to.

 

If I'm not mistaken, though, the drill turret on CVs consumes a boatload of power whenever it's switched on. Could that method not also be used for the railgun? Where the ammo itself is almost inconsequential in cost, but the power consumption is massive instead?

 

I support this notion. But, perhaps more importantly, why can't guns only consume power while they are firing or - in the case of turrets - turning and targeting? Why must they consume the same amount of power 24/7, regardless of how little they are used or even if they are out of ammo? If turrets must always consume power for targeting/radar, you could at least make that a reduced amount.

The Drill Turret for CVs is an excellent case: This scary monster consumes a massive 1500 kW sitting idle, doing absolutely nothing. Shouldn't it be more like 5 or 10 kW idle, jumping up to 1500 kW while actually drilling? And what about the Multitool Turret?

 

Yes but it yields 2 fuel after refinement. Vs the previous 2 raw per gather and 1 to 1 processing.

So happy that is getting consideration.

This has bothered me too.

 

I agree with previous posters that power consumption is a problem, especially for idle weapons/turrets. What I would like to see is a more comprehensive power management aspect built into the game. The recent solar panel and battery additions are a slight move in the right direction. But overall, the current system is incredibly crude. Power generation, power storage, and power consumption should all be looked at.

And this is illustrated perfectly by the railgun concerns that several people have expressed here. Although it isn't so much that railguns have high power usage - they have INSANE power usage for a very brief period of time. But if you have an energy storage device that both contains enough energy and can deliver enough power to fire the weapon, then you can use a much more modest power generator. Think of it like an electronic camera flash. Those use capacitors, which take some time to charge. And then all of that energy is released in a very short period of time. So while you might be drawing a couple of watts from a AA battery to charge the capacitor, you could easily use power from the capacitor in the kilowatt range during the flash itself.

So, I would like to see a ship-mounted capacitor of some sort that could charge over time, but discharge rapidly in order to fire railguns. The rate of fire could initially be high until the capacitor is fully discharged, and then it would be limited by how long it takes to build enough charge again. Alternatively, a railgun itself could be considered to have an internal capacitor that functions in a similar way. But I think it would be more fun to build your ship with the capacitors and generators that you want.

I would also like to see railgun damage be much higher than other weapons, offset by the relatively long charge time to prepare to fire again after your capacitor is depleted.

And yes, the sathium requirement for ammo is currently way to high.