Summer balance change observations (SP)

Atarlost

I've been away from the game over the summer and come back to some changes that I wish I'd had the opportunity to comment on when they were new.

Railguns:
- Railguns seem to penetrate armor. Armor previously stopped penetrating projectiles. In a railgun meta armor is devalued. When armor is good the tension between internal armor and crew pathing makes design more interesting.

- Railguns outrange everything and stand alone. Because of the death ring this may be less of an MP issue, but in SP railgun kites will trash anything without a railgun. Unlike missiles they aren't hard countered by anything.

- The great damage and vulnerability of large railguns make them dominate combat in which they feature. Either they get focused early or they penetrate both shields and armor, hit critical internal components, and win.

Engines:
- The loss of side thrust is a massive nerf to diagonal ships. Dedicated diagonal thrusters would be needed to even the playing field.

- 2 way small thrusters are not suitable for diagonal thrust because they have such a large nozzle footprint. Twice as many normal small thrusters can be placed in the same space because of this.

- 2 and 3 way small thrusters have phantom footprints. You cannot place them diagonally across from each other such that the diagonal corner of their exclusion zones overlap. I would argue this is a bug.

Cannons:
- Large and standard cannons now have the same maximum range with large cannons having lower shot speed. I see nothing in any patch notes about large cannons gaining damage relative to standard cannons, making them kind of pointless. Large cannons are more difficult to shield and both cannon types are impossible to armor. Without the range advantage over standard cannons they're overshadowed.

Walt

Atarlost Railguns:
- Railguns seem to penetrate armor. Armor previously stopped penetrating projectiles. In a railgun meta armor is devalued. When armor is good the tension between internal armor and crew pathing makes design more interesting.

- Railguns outrange everything and stand alone. Because of the death ring this may be less of an MP issue, but in SP railgun kites will trash anything without a railgun. Unlike missiles they aren't hard countered by anything.

- The great damage and vulnerability of large railguns make them dominate combat in which they feature. Either they get focused early or they penetrate both shields and armor, hit critical internal components, and win.

There's definitely a big difference between singleplayer and multiplayer. Railguns seem mostly fine in MP because players can build ships to counter them. But almost none of the built-in SP ships are made to counter railguns, so they feel a lot more powerful than they actually are in the hands of smart designers (which is still very powerful).

Atarlost - The loss of side thrust is a massive nerf to diagonal ships. Dedicated diagonal thrusters would be needed to even the playing field.

I think this is actually a good thing. Diagonal ships have a big firepower advantage, so I think being less maneuverable is reasonable.

Atarlost 2 and 3 way small thrusters have phantom footprints. You cannot place them diagonally across from each other such that the diagonal corner of their exclusion zones overlap. I would argue this is a bug.

I agree this is not ideal. The game engine doesn't support non-rectangular parts, which is why it works the way it does, and fixing that would take way more work than it's worth.

Atarlost Large and standard cannons now have the same maximum range with large cannons having lower shot speed. I see nothing in any patch notes about large cannons gaining damage relative to standard cannons, making them kind of pointless. Large cannons are more difficult to shield and both cannon types are impossible to armor. Without the range advantage over standard cannons they're overshadowed.

Large cannons have more than twice the DPS, more penetration, and twice the armor of a standard cannon despite only using 50% more surface area. I'm not really sure how they're overshadowed by standard cannons?

thatPolarBear

Atarlost you basically just made an overview of all the arguments over the summer XD.
except the large cannons I see no problem with those.

nop

Atarlost Without the range advantage over standard cannons they're overshadowed.

At max range shootouts large cannon shot velocity is a big problem. I've switched to standards on my flankers because even if I do everything right to get in a good position, it's easy to boost away from the large cannon shells. I would say large cannons have "sweet spots" where they do mega damage but standards hit things more consistently. I wouldn't say either is "overshadowed" though..

One thing large cannons have always had going for them is ramming their barrels into enemy ships to get behind their shields and do mega damage to internals. This is less effective without the old collision avoidance lockdown, but an important difference between the cannons.

Atarlost If they're requiring specific counters they're still dominating the meta even in their absence unless those railgun countermeasures have no significant opportunity cost.

Multi-shipping/swarming seems weak right now for other reasons, but Oneye's 900k main/100k flanker split is a small price to pay for an extra attack angle against a ship only designed for 1v1. Having a weapon like a railgun that dominates at 1v1 seems like a great way to make fleet play more popular, but other things are working against it right now.

Mc2

Atarlost

The loss of side thrust is a massive nerf to diagonal ships. Dedicated diagonal thrusters would be needed to even the playing field.

ship I´m most happy with maneuverability and speed, is diagonal, I do not see any huge problem with removing lateral thrust. Only not much experienced player do not see diagonal design speed and manouevearability advantages which come from maneuver.
And who know only one order- go forward, should learn more manouevers, not complain about bad speed forward.

Railguns are very strong on big ships, but who plays with reasonable budget, see, that they are balanced well, there is always way to beat railgun.

Atarlost

Walt There's definitely a big difference between singleplayer and multiplayer. Railguns seem mostly fine in MP because players can build ships to counter them. But almost none of the built-in SP ships are made to counter railguns, so they feel a lot more powerful than they actually are in the hands of smart designers (which is still very powerful).

If they're requiring specific counters they're still dominating the meta even in their absence unless those railgun countermeasures have no significant opportunity cost.

Walt I think this is actually a good thing. Diagonal ships have a big firepower advantage, so I think being less maneuverable is reasonable.

Diagonal ships are completely unable to use ion beams or railguns and have very narrow fire arc overlap for cannons and still quite narrow for large laser blasters. If they have a firepower advantage it must be coming from wide arc weapons. Missiles are about equal (both squares and diamonds have two sides that are only good for missiles) leaving small laser blasters and electrobolts as the culprits. If these overshadow the larger weapons perhaps that is the problem.

Walt Large cannons have more than twice the DPS, more penetration, and twice the armor of a standard cannon despite only using 50% more surface area. I'm not really sure how they're overshadowed by standard cannons?

Standard cannons have 2.5 degrees of inaccuracy. Large cannons have 4 degrees of inaccuracy compounded by a lower projectile velocity. Standard cannons are thus better at focusing single shield segments or the long, narrow superweapons which now exist in the game. The deep penetration niche has been taken over by railguns which synergize better with the accuracy of standard cannons to focus single shields than the spread out damage of large cannons.