Exactly! While the smaller turrets could be set to destroy smaller targets, you should be able to select which target the heavier turrets should attack if the situation should need it (or the other way round). The point is to give more control to the player if he/she wants to. Shields would add extra time for a more tactical focussed gamepley style, instead of having to dodge enemy fire with a +100K ton CV. Maybe they will rebalance /restrict the allowed number of RCS (maybe connected to tonnage?) so super nimble CVs wouldn't be possible anymore. Instead, those big ships should rely more on heavy energy Shields as damage sponge and thus allow a more slow and tactical/strategic focussed playstyle. (I maybe need to say, my eyes, nerves and reaction aren't the best anymore either. So i would welcome a more slower gameplay style too )
Great job as always. However, what I'm still missing are some sort of siege weapons - weapons that do not deal a lot of damage usually, but get a lot of bonus damage against structures and building blocks. it pains me, that I have to use 30-40 shots from my rocket launcher just to blow away a 1000 hp window.
Not very found of the whole Epic weapon balancing change. In my opinion bad design choice. Developers should look more into how many action RPG games handle loot quality levels. For some inspiration there are many games to look at, such as Borderlands, Diablo 3 or Path of Exile, where item quality levels don't have fixed stats so that if you get a legendary (in this game it's epic) weapon, it doesn't necessarily mean, that it's the best out there, but it might be better than the tier below it. 7 days to die zombie survival game handles loot quality even more gradually by having quality levels for each usable weapon/tool from 1 to 600, and that level determines the stats. The fix, what was presented with 7.0 for weapons is a pathetic excuse and in my opinion the most lazy solution from them all. I never liked the fact, that once you got the epic weapon, that's it, you don't need another weapon of that category, not even crafted one, but the solution introduced with 7.0 is not a good one. Might as well just remove the epic versions of weapons from the game. For a moment forget about "gameplay balancing" and think about how logical it sounds, that if you upgrade a T2 weapon to the enhanced version of the weapon just to make it slightly more powerful, but then you don't have the ability to repair it? How logical does that sound? You have the technology to make it, but not repair it. In the setting that the game is set? It just sounds silly. Proposed solution: Epic (now Enhanced weapons) should be repairable. Make stats of Epic weapons be dynamic and varied, but the bare minimum stat ranges shouldn't be lower than T2 equivalents. Randomize the stats of the weapon, when it is spawned inside the loot containers with the POI. This would make it so that not all Epic weapons will be a like. The technology required to make this change is up to the developers of the game to design, but the most best solution would be somewhere down the lines of Borderlands games. And you can push this a step further by making randomized T1 and T2 weapons, so that there is a chance to find a better weapon/tool from loot than by crafting it by hand. And those, who don't have a clue in programming don't say, that it's hard. I made such a change for Minecraft items as a mod within a week (a long time ago), by introducing quality levels, randomized names for rare items like in diablo 3, randomized stats etc. Each stat had min-max range based on the item level, just like Diablo games.
Just noticed this, thought I'd mention for a future balance pass. Currently the CV Cannon & Minigun Turrets basically offer exactly the same damage over time, yet the Minigun Turret is much more expensive, materials wise; ----------- Iron - Copper - Silicon - Cobalt - Sathium - Neodymium Cannon: -- 8 ------ 2 ------- 4 ------- 4 --------- 4 ---------- 10 Minigun: - 16 ----- 8 ------- 4 ------ 34 -------- 34 --------- 85 Additionally, the Minigun is inferior to the Cannon due to it's slower rotation degrees/sec, and now that 30mm stacks to 1500, in effect you can only carry half the 'damage' for the Minigun since it's 15mm also stacks to 1500. That's jumbled, sorry. Trying to say that it takes exactly twice the number of Minigun rounds to deal the same damage as x number of Cannon rounds. And since both ammo types stack to the same 1500/stack, you're potentially halfing your 'ready' damage per ammo container. There's been numerous posts regarding adding in some sort of 'Fire Control', and I really like the idea myself. So maybe in the future various Tiers of that could provide a mechanic to prevent having 12 turrets early on? Mention this since the early weapons for the HV/SV use 15mm, and if the CV Minigun was the same material cost as the Cannon, then some folks might appreciate only having to load out one ammo type. Edit: should note that the above materials is in ingots, and I'm not factoring in any leftovers.
Hmm, I'm sold. Cancel my Minigun orders. I want Cannons. Oh, if you fire Cannons manually, you can fire them faster than the computer does.
Minigun : damage 8, rate 600 - ammo takes 10 steel plates, 4 prom. pellets, you get 100 bullets Cannon : damage 16, rate 300 - ammo takes 10 steel plates, 4 prom. pellets, you get 50 bullets Minigun is level 10, cannon is level 8. Maybe not all enemies are worth spending minigun ammo on? I used them a lot in previous versions, but now it's cannons all the way : much less noise and waste of ammo. Maybe they just want to make minigun "later game content"...
I prefer the Cannon as well, even ignoring the level and material differences. What I was guessing was that, for now at least, the significant 'rare' material cost associated with Miniguns was a way to slow down adding a full 6 more turrets onto CVs. So, yes, same "later game content" thought. What I didn't describe well was, maybe in the future, if both turrets unlocked and cost the same, leaving stats alone, then some might prefer Miniguns to start with simply due to ammo interchangability with early SV/HV weapons. Which I could see would then require a mechanic that would 'gate' the overall number of turrets one could mount. So a power, or computational thingy so a level 10 CV couldn't have 12 or more turrets. Heck, I don't know, I like Cannons just fine and always use them for bases & CVs. And since I prefer not to assault POIs I don't go through much ammo, so interchangability isn't a big deal to me. Just kinda seemed to me that, due to the material cost, the Miniguns should be 'better' than Cannons. Though of course simply being able to add another 6 turrets is 'better' enough right?
I only have 4 cannons and 2 miniguns. I only need these turrets for drones and critters, and usually I make cannons for drones / generators / mounted weapons, and miniguns just for predators, and only active when I leave the ship once on the ground. I can't stand hearing my 15 being spent on dead meat I will never pick up far below when I fly over a planet. I have artillery set exclusively on generators (used to be "core" but they changed it). I think the cost for minigun ammo being the same, it is really a question of preference, but for the HV there is only minigun...
I usually just set a couple of diagonally offset Cannons to fire on predators, but your setup has a couple of significant advantages, if you hear your Cannons fire then you know it's not just a critter, which would be a big help for me since I mine almost exclusively via remote, and setting controls would be easier since it would be by 'type' rather than having to remember or rename, thanks for the idea!
By the by; I'm not really sure how this happened, I was just trying to make -something- that wasn't a cube. Things got a little out of hand... It can mount 20 Turrets, 1 Arty & 4 fixed guns, without using the keel. Serious overkill for my playstyle. I actually prefer my 'barge' below, just can't fit in a Warp drive without it looking really goofy. But it's good starter for me. Just tacked on the Sentry Guns on either side for critter patrol thanks to your comment above; might have to play w location.
I would like to talk about the repair mechanics and changes to epic weapons. I think in general disposable tech is not the way to go here and from the very beginning I have been against the limits to how many times you can repair an item. The issue here is how repairs are handled in the first place in that there is a magical machine that just fixes them. Generally speaking firearms generally don't break if properly maintained. when you think about how many serviceable WWII era firearms are around the disposable tech theory really starts to look more like a tossed in mechanic because there are no plans for a balanced repair system. One thing that this game has needed from the beginning has been a salvage / recycling system where loot can be broken down into its component parts. This would allow items to be repaired fully by consuming salvaged parts instead of free but limited repairs you can actively maintain your favorite weapons by breaking down looted items for the parts required to fully repair them. This seems to be the optimal solution because it gives the players the ability they have always wanted unlimited repairs to items but at the same time requires players to loot items and salvage them for parts in order to perform the repairs which serves the devs original purpose of encouraging players to explore. A parts system also means that a rare items can be maintained although this will either require parts from other rare items or just large number of basic parts. it its at least a workable task
@Mike Loeven , in general I agree with you. However, personally, I would very much like the ability to play without ever having to touch a POI. While what you suggest might not readily support my prefered playstyle, I can certainly see the benefits. And it would add a useful bit of immersion to the whole repair mechanic. I've wondered if something like, "a plasma cannons barrel is only safe to use for 30 shots, if it is not replaced it may fail." could add some spice, and a bit of a materials sink. Similar could apply to high cyclic rate rifles/turrets.
The propellant requirements for missile projectiles are not balanced. Specifically the missles for the SV (130MSL) are completely out of whack. It looks like there was an extra 0 added to the promethium requirement, i.e., it should require 5 but requires 50 instead. The Rocker Launcher missiles could also use a balance pass. And the Flak Shell CV looks like it should require 5 Mag instead of 20. A comparison: Rocket Launcher Missile 25 Steel Plates, 25 Prom RLM Homing 30 Steel Plates, 40 Prom Flak Shell BA 40 Steel Plates, 5 Prom, 1 Electronics Flak Shell CV 40 Steel Plates, 20 Mag, 1 Electronics 130 MSL 20 Steel Plates, 50 Prom, 1 Electronics 135 H-MSL 25 Steel Plates, 5 Prom, 5 Cobalt Alloy 150 H-MSL 25 Steel Plates, 5 Mag, 1 Electronics 155 H-MSL 25 Steel Plates, 5 Prom, 1 Oscillator 160 MSL 20 Steel Plates, 5 Mag, 1 Oscillator 165 H-MSL 20 Steel Plates, 5 Mag, 1 Oscillator Art Shell HV 20 Steel Plates, 5 Mag, 1 Oscillator
OK so I couldn't find a feedback for the turret range reduction from roughly 850m to 530m. So i'm posting this here. Before A7 the turret range was already short enough that i felt compelled to make it my primary consideration when designing my end game Single Player CV. I was 90% done with it when A7 came out. It is made such that with a focal point at 850m directly i front of the ship all but a handful of turrets can fire at the enemy. With the changes the focal point will be reduced to 530 and so the ship will become slightly more curved If i feel anal about it (will have 3 blocks difference between center of turret and the ends of port and starboard sides instead of 2). -come to think of it this might be a great use of the new builder tools - so I probably will. I don't really care personal about this design limitation. I find it interesting. But a lot of people come to the game with there own ideas about what a spaceship should look like and if the ship design that lets them have a chance at winning is radically different they might not stick around. I worried that you might need their dollars to keep developing the game. Below should be pics of the 90% completed ship (really just some hull work left to do).
Besides crazy unbalanced prom requirements, the overall cost of ammo seems too high. You made ammo stack size higher. But you made it way more expensive (especially the charges that use erestrum). At the same time, it's much harder to get resources (infinite resources from non-depleting AMs was broken and needed to be fixed). Taken all together, this doesn't really make sense.
Hey there. Just throwing my two cents here, everything that follows bears the IMHO tag. First of all, I was surprised at the lack of depth added by this weapon rebalancing. Let me elaborate a little bit on this part. When I fire a gun, or place an explosive charge, use a rocket launcher or strafe around a Zirax emptying my minigun in his (its?) chest... it simply doesn't have what I call the "kick." The lack of interesting "reactions" from a gun, be it wild spread, crazy sound effects and particle effects - and the absent or mild reaction from the enemy (just a hit "mark" and a grunt, while they keep moonwalking like Michael Jackson) make the FPS part of this game look and play like a 1995 game. Remember this little gem? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sCwMJjpaIgg/ValWe2cka-I/AAAAAAAAL8o/lzlbyZXXKbc/s640/dark+forces+4.jpg Dark Forces. That's what I feel like I'm playing when I'm using guns in Empyrion. And... it shouldn't be the case. I know it's still in Alpha, I know it's Early Access... but this part of the game really feels... "off." Also, easily exploitable since the enemy A.I is practically braindead and based on spawners/bad pathing. Just like in Minecraft. And we don't want that, right? Then, there's the actual change to the existing weapons. I'm pleased to see that weapon kits are no longer necessary in order to have a decent arsenal. But the resource increase in bullet/charges production, coupled with the mining rework, means that early to mid game ammo replenishment is a logistical NIGHTMARE. All the extra time used for mining (something that, at times, Space Engineers made almost... fun) means that there will be, obviously, less time to explore, build, create, roleplay (if that's your thing, it's definitely mine) and fight your enemies in creative ways. I see... mostly workarounds that, in the end, do not improve the gameplay. I actually preferred when I had my bike and my ingots to start with, instead of a VERY conveniently placed base that is, who knows why, abandoned and waiting for someone to fall on the top of it. Also, as others have said. The range limitation is something that doesn't make sense to me. I'd have expected a range INCREASE instead, given the HUGE creations that players obviously want to field against their enemies, be them human or artificial in nature. Imagine a clash in a scenario like Battlestar Galactica, Homeworld, Star Wars... pretty much every sci-fi franchise where the "long range guns" have a kilometer range and your ship is five kilometers long. It doesn't make sense. Also, I'd really love to see bullet drop on planets and solid "slug-type" projectiles going on forever (technically they would disappear, but after a long, long travel time) until they hit something or are no longer relevant. A mass driver kind of weapon should technically travel until it's caught by the gravitational pull of planetary body or when it actually hits something. That's pretty much everything I had to say, thanks for reading.
Ground: not had a problem with the weapon rebalancing - easy to make/find anything which... maybe defeating the point of survival you should be forced to use whats at hand not have everything gifted on a plate, but *shrug* sure someone will complain. Space: not that bothered about range per se but ammo costs for certain things are way out of line - railgun ammo - 3 zasc alloy for 7 shots? Crazy and that has now become junk - you'd never use the things with that cost - lets say you build 700 (100 "lots") - a decent amount for a planetary roam/clear space - thats 2100 ere / 2100 zasc which is half of my recent battlecruiser CV build.... Why not reduce that and slap some magnesium in? According to the statements thats the "higher" end weapon propellant? Equally on minimal minerals whilst I havnt had any problems finding any minerals at all - other than pentaxid (comments on that in the current "what I dislike the most thread") the use of promethium for ammo means you're always scrambling for this and a lot of planets on min ore level/min no. of deposits have only 1-2 prom - its tight at times and this needs to be monitored. All comments regarding SP
My thoughts on the weapons are: - Pistols... there's no foreseeable point, low range and low damage...to what benefit? They take up the same 'room' in game as a full sized rifle. Unless I've totally missed something here there doesn't seem any use other than a simple weapon to first start with. Maybe if the pistol took up no inventory space it'd be worth it. Maybe have a dedicated inventory slot for pistols (and a stack of ammo?) so you could swap it as you progress? If you do this please add a revolver of some description, something with low ammo capacity and high(er) damage. - We've got mods for Amour maybe we should have mods for Weapons too? It'd make the 'Enhanced' versions more viable if it had more mod-slots. The mods need only be stat boosters or changers. A Full-auto mod on a pistol would be fun! Anything that adds more customisation is a win-win imo. - A thermite charge would be nice, something that could burn through most blocks. In my mind it would be like the det-charge but instead of just blowing up it would sit on the block dealing damage over time until it either runs out or the block breaks. And it could be shot off/destroyed mid-process.
After you get situated, its the door opening tool. Drones bring you free ammo, so indirectly drones are opening doors for you.
Just started a new 7.3 game on Omnicron (Enemy Difficulty = Med). Made it to Adm Station. Went outside in morning and a spider was stuck on the stairs. It couldn't climb up to bite me so I stood within approx 3 meters of it and used starter .50 cal pistol to shoot it in the head. Took -20- direct head-shots to kill it. That seems like a bit much? Honestly don't have a good suggestion on the overall 'damage' balance. I like to play very conservatively and avoid danger as much as possible; RP'ing what I think I'd do if it were 'real'. So I know my preference would be radically different than those who enjoy the rush of lots of hostile mobs coming at them. Going to set Enemy Difficulty to Low and see how it goes, but have an armed HV & Assault Rifle now so there won't be anymore Pistol vs. Spider fights, unless I make one happen... and I really hate spiders!! !!
