Sniper Rifle's main advantage is range, and it gets a pretty significant damage multiplier for headshots Only if you're not mining. A bit of magnesium isn't that hard to come by since it's hardly used by anything else. Not all shotguns are automatically doublebarreled. I agree with the one-shotting weaker enemies, but I doubt the shotgun would stagger anything other than the bipedal dinosaurs. Things are pretty massive compared to the player. Pistol's pretty potent, as you'd expect from a .50 caliber cartridge, even if it isn't chambered as a rifle round, but again, ammo is only a concern early game. As it should be. It's much less of an issue once you get established and mine a few deposits. ...Disagree. Even if they are primarily energy-based, you still need some serious engineering to store that energy in a battery or capacitor, and it's much easier to swap out an expended capacitor/batter/cell/magazine than it is to run back to a base or ship and plug it in to recharge. And why should they be weaker? You just spent most of your post taking issue at how weak projectile weapons feel. Projectile weapons are supposed to be relatively weak starter weapons, and energy weapons/advanced projectiles a step up. Save the balancing complaints for Beta, after most of the features are in place. It's too early to take balance seriously unless there's something game-breaking.
This thread's OP specifically asks for balancing input, so... As far as the sniper rifle goes, you say earlier in the thread that headshots for it top out at 240 while the assault rifle top out at 100. Considering the refire rates, magazine capacities, and ammo production quantities for both weapons, that (to me) points to how underpowered the sniper rifle is. The range isn't that big of an advantage as the scope doesn't zoom in that much and you can hip-fire the assault rifle the same distance. In my opinion, something needs to give. Either a slightly higher refire rate/magazine size for the sniper rifle, or increased damage. As far as why energy weapons should be different, it's because I can't stand it in games when different weapons are just "upgrades" of older ones. Tactically there's really no difference between energy and projectile weapons other than damage, and that just isn't interesting. I like there being pros and cons to different items instead of a straight upgrade. Like the following as an example: Projectile weapons: Medium Damage Medium Accuracy Medium Cost Ammo Laser Weapons: Low-Medium Damage (Current Projectile Damage) High Accuracy Free Ammo (Only Energy Required) Plasma Weapons: High Damage Medium-High Accuracy High Cost Ammo
That's great, but I still disagree. When research is implemented, it's only right that there be options that are straight upgrades to weapons available for people who like them. Also, please bear in mind that currently, we're only facing what are the initial enemies. As the game progresses and is developed, more potent and dangerous foes will be added. Requesting a weapon that is weaker than anything currently implemented strikes me as being very short-sighted. And having free ammo for anything...in a survival game? Seems kind of against the point of needing to acquire resources. You can have your views, but I'm still gonna disagree. Though I also have to take issue with your balancing, if anything, plasma ammo should be second cheapest since all you need is a relatively small amount of gas and the 'free' energy from energy weapons to dump into it to make it hot and excite it into that lovely fourth state of matter. It just doesn't seem like an internally consistent suggestion.
Yeah, but currently there are already multiple tiers to all of the weapon types, so what's the point of having a Tiered system that modifies nothing but damage output AND different weapon types that do exactly the same? It's redundant and boring. I wasn't suggesting that they be weaker than anything currently implemented, only as weak as the current projectile weapons which would be slightly buffed to offset the benefits of the laser weaponry. You still need power. In the future, for example, having low damaging turrets that run off of battery power and solar panels would be great for unmanned bases and outposts. It might not kill the big bads, but it would be a useful deterrent and better than nothing or having to constantly re-stock ammo stores manually. Having weapons in general that just need to be charged would be great, but you'd need to balance them out (lower damage). Not to mention you could further balance it by making the weapon itself comparably expensive to build. You know darn well that the "plasma" weapons in this game are "sci-fi" plasma weapons, IE not actually plasma. If it were like real plasma, it would be an extremely short range weapon with only a few inches or feet. I was thinking along the lines of the original X-Com: Enemy Unknown where laser weapons had infinite ammo and plasma weapons had expensive ammo. The bottom line is you can call them all whatever you want, (plasma, energy, Ion, pule, guass, rail, etc, it doesn't matter), the point is to have the weapons be interesting and varied. Right now, they aren't. They're just the standard archetypes with superficial types and tiers that do nothing but increase damage output.
Which is going to change once the research mechanic is implemented. You can have different TYPES of weapons with different TIERS of performance. Really? You didn't say anything to that effect. And I'm still not a fan of lumping all the ballistic weapons together. Or are you suggesting that railguns and sniper rifles only have 'medium' accuracy because they're not DEWs? Yeah, you still need power. Which isn't that much of an investment. You were talking about portable weapons, not turrets, so disregarding your apples to oranges here. For a rifle, pistol, or anything else portable, you need something to store the power in, so ammo's not going to be free. Making batteries or capacitors is gonna cost you. I know nothing of the sort, as the plasma weapons in game only have an effective range of about four hundred meters, if that. Which is about what you'd expect from a vehicle-mounted emitter. Also, plasma is rather more effective as a ranged weapon in space. Nothing you say here contradicts my argument for the relative cost of plasma ammunition so.. And what's wrong with the standard archetypes? This is a semi-realistic survival game, not Ratchet and Clank. If you want more exotic weapons this may not be the game for you. I really can't tell if you're having difficulty communicating what you want, or if you're just not sure about what genre of game you bought.
But if it all comes down to damage then what's the difference other than graphical effects? Yeah you missed it: I'm suggesting that the different type of weapons (Projectile, Laser, Plasma) behave differently beyond just their class (Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Sniper), in addition to scaling damage based on what Tier they are. What I suggested is just one way to do it. I wasn't suggesting that a Projectile Sniper Rifle would have "medium" accuracy, only that it would medium compared to the other types (Laser, Plasma) of weapons. IE, a Laser Sniper Rifle would be the most accurate sniper rifle, but a Projectile Sniper Rifle would still be as accurate as you would expect for a normal sniper rifle. Due to no recoil, for example, the laser would be more accurate realistically than any projectile based weapon could be. Like I keep saying, the point is to have varied behavior between weapon types. Having a laser weapon that only needs recharging instead of a constant production of ammo isn't technically "free", and can be balanced properly a number of different ways. Heck you could make it so that theses energy type weapons only have a single large magazine and cant be loaded, but must be recharged at a fuel tank the same way oxygen is at the station. There's a ton of ways to do it, the point is to make it interesting and varied. It's a sci-fi game, why have plasma and laser weapons that perform identically to regular projectile weapons? Ok, just buzz off. Seriously. This is a discussion forum, for FEEDBACK. STOP BEING TOXIC. If you don't like an idea, then fine, but if you're going to be a jerk about it then you're totally missing the point of this thread and forum.
Pot to kettle, stay black yo. Seriously, if you can't handle feedback on suggestions or dissenting opinions, perhaps you're the one who's missing the point of the forum. You don't like me, fine. Figure out how to use the ignore or block function. Only got yourself and your chronic lack of exploration and education to blame.
I LOVE criticism and hashing things out, but if you really can't tell how you were being insulting then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I don't dislike you, I just don't like being talked down to which you seem to enjoy doing. Knock it off and we'll get along fine.
After playing with the sniper, assault rifle, and pistol I'd say the sniper rifle is definitely lacking in range. The assault rifle is an absolute beast and has a scope and range of 180, where the sniper is only 220 and seemingly the same power scope. With full auto, the rifle is able to do more damage faster than the sniper. I think the range should be buffed to at least 360, as you can line up heads shots visually as far out as 400. I'd be OK with just that buff, as you could at least engage at sniper ranges.
Agreed, but it appears the shorter range is a performance/rendering issue. A proposed short-term solution would be to give the sniper rifle a 4.0 or possibly 5.0 multiplier on headshots. Or to give it a damage bonus against drones, as it is technically an anti-materiel rifle judging from the size of the round. Perhaps the way to vary the weapons would be the damage multipliers, making them more effective against different targets or in different situations instead of simply making them more or less accurate? That said, I would dearly love a higher velocity rocket for the rocket launcher, even if it sacrifices some damage.
Ooh, different rocket types is a cool idea! Normal Round Anti-Air (Fast but weaker) High Explosive (Large Blast radius but weaker) Armor Piercing (More damage vs armored enemies) Incendiary (Large blast sets fire to everything causing damage over time and panicking certain enemies)
I wonder where the ammu for vehicle-mounted weapons come from. they only need some electricity. I don't want to argue about it. I'm happy that i don't have to bother about recharging in the middle of a space fight. I'm just curious. I think the difference in damage between tier1 weapons and tier2 weapons should be bigger. It's almost not worth flying to another planet just to be able to build a weapon that does 15% more damage.
I think they're still planning on adding ammo requirements for vehicle weapons, they just haven't implemented it yet. I agree though, I really like not worrying about ammo for the vehicles, hopefully when they add ammo they also add some type of alternative weapon that only requires energy.
So myself and another person decided to do some weapons balance testing tonight to get an idea of what we're dealing with. I won't go too into the details as we were purely guessing on our damage values, based on a tentative guess on how armor works. That being said, the plasma cannon for the GV is far and beyond the most overpowered weapon in the game. It's broken. Majorly. The toughest target we could find was a Large Constructor, which took 76 shots from a laser rifle, 30 rockets from an SV Rocket launcher, etc. The GV's Plasma Cannon killed it instantly. One shot. Disintegrated it and everything around it. Based on our testing, the GV's plasma cannon does at least 3 times the damage of the SVs plasma cannon (which took 3 hits to kill the constructor). In turn, the SV's Plasma cannon did approximately 4.5x the damage of the next highest weapon, which was the SV Rail Gun. That being said, the rockets fired from the BA turret, the SV launcher, and the GV launcher all suffer from range inconsistency. Sometimes at long ranges they would explode and sometimes they wouldn't. Sometimes the terrain would be deformed, other times unscathed. So we placed targets (SVs) out there, and sometimes they would explode, other times not, albeit at a much higher consistency (~15% as opposed to ~5%). It made it incredibly difficult to determine the true range of these weapons but we made an estimate based on consistency. These are our results: SV Pulse: 1km+ RNG (Shot at 998 worked just fine, assuming it works beyond 999, but you can't see anything beyond there so we can't be sure) SV Rockets 790 RNG. Could occasionally (~10-15%) get hits up to about 800, but too inconsistent to be useful. SV Gatling Gun 200RNG - Seriously, the gatling guns are useless. Entirely. Completely. Don't even bother using them. They LOOK fantastic, though! SV Plasma Cannon 930 RNG - Absolute range. 931 did nothing. The projectile disappeared. SV Rail Gun 847 RNG - THIS THING HITS NOTHING AT 848m! That was incredibly frustrating to learn.. BA Rocket Turret 235 RNG - We had ~5-10% success up to about 250m. 235m was 100% 240 was about 10%. HUGE drop off. BA Cannon Turret 0 RNG This thing.. it doesn't work. I think it shoots straight down? We were unable to test it properly. We blew it up in frustration. GV Gatling... ???RNG we couldn't hit anything at ~130m (I think; idr the exact distance) we didn't bother testing it after that. It's pretty much useless for anything but killing Dinos. GV Rockets 250 RNG about 5-10% consistency up to 260m then disappearance. You can't even aim to the max height before projectiles disappear. GV Plasma 300 RNG ...yeah the rng is alright. But it literally destroyed everything in one hit. As in EVERYTHING. All of these tests were done in Creative. But I an confirm the SV gatlings are pretty much eye candy, as attempting to use them tends to result in becoming a red splatter more often than not. The most important lesson learned here is that if you want a nearly indestructible base in space.. cover it with large constructors. It'll be nigh impregnable. If anyone's interested in our theorized damage values I have those as well, and can explain how we reached the (very simple and almost assuredly wrong) results. Either way, the values may not be correct but they are a fairly accurate source of comparison between the damage of the weapons. Furthermore, I streamed the entire thing, so if you want a link I'll be happy to provide one once I highlight out our goofing off at the end in space.
Aiming with weapons mounted on vehicles is a pain because they aim straight forward. If you mount a gatling gun left and right of the cockpit and you aim exactly at a small target (like a scorpion), the bullets hit the ground left and right of the monster. Also, if the vehicle holds more than one weapon of the same type, they are all shown separately in the action bar. When you shoot, all weapons of the same type shoot at once. Hint: don't mount rocket launchers in a way that the rockets cross the jet of a thruster
It would be pretty awesome if you could adjust the horizontal and vertical firing angle by a small static % in the console screen. Then you could sight in your firing angle when constructing your ship to converge at certain ranges, just like the old ww2 planes that had their guns in the wings!
My feed back on weapons and weapon systems is that the weapons are a bit simple, no engineering done or no combo that can change the weapon's output which would lead to different weapons for ships. For example if you use the weapon combos in this video you'll get weapon voxel engineering It would be nice if you can create or improve idea or let us engineer weapons
Weapon varinty is good. Better then some another games. Better but... May be more better. And... Balance. Balance. Large missile turret is strange. This is large structure but cost and vitality like small machine gun turret. Need more cost and vitality. But the main things I dislike it is weapon conrol. Im want manualy setup distant of point of mixing like warplane simulator for hard mount weapon. Im want have option turn off mixing like push alt button. Mainly im want good turret manual control - im want turret control like dead project Corneroids - it weapon control perfect. In this game may group your weapon and controll group from special consoles. Possibility turn ai control to tyrrets good to make suport weapon battary. Like suport guns from game World of Warhips But if AI is only way to controll many turrets it is bad.
Wolf, I've been in a few threads now where the problem you have is getting shot down in a SV. While in sympathize with you, and agree that weapons stats would be nice, it sounds like you need to learn how to fly and avoid incoming fire... I'm not putting you down or saying anything about myself here. I get shot down sometimes too. But you can take out a base turret with any of the weapons, you just have to practice and learn what type of flight or hovering attack works best with which weapon. The rail guns shoot farther than I can render the turrets (which is also outside the turrets target/awareness range), so I fire on them at the location I think they are supposed to be and have 80% success and mop up the last 1 or 2 up close. It helps a lot to think of the SV as a helicopter not an airplane. Use the vertical lift a to your advantage behind hill tops to pop-up, fire, and drop down. If you have to be close enough for detection, remember that the air targeting is currently trying to fire on you based on your movement. So strafe to one side for a second or 2 then stop and move the other way, stop and shoot, repeat. Use your vertical thrust to do this as well as combinations. Perhaps I should do a video of this for folks having trouble.... Flying straight at your target to line up your shot and not getting hit is extremely challenging and I usually get toasted. I need more practice at it.... Again, this is not an insult toward you in any way, just my thoughts on what the larger issue is that you are experiencing. And above all else, RAIL GUNS.... like 4 of em...[/QUOTE] You can also snipe with rocket launchers i destroyed the Enemy top turret in the Towers with Rockets and the Tower dont attack
