Info > Feedback and Suggestions
The Case for Falloff Damage and a Third Damage Type
The Djinn:
--- Quote from: Richard LeMoon on February 26, 2016, 11:14:39 pm ---Pretty close. Guns could have any damage type on the falloff, which I am going to start calling 'Terminal' damage, as well as moving it to secondary in place of Burst since it happens before Burst.
--- End quote ---
So this is a really cool idea, but I'm not sold on the presentation.
I think an easier way to present the idea (and increase clarification) would be to simply give all weapons three Range Increments and 2-3 damage types at each increment (make that a variable amount, possibly).
The you might see something like this:
ARTEMIS
0-500m: X Shatter Damage
50-250m: X Shatter Damage, X Explosive Damage (Secondary)
250-1300m: X Explosive Damage (Primary), X Shatter Damage (Secondary), X Fire Damage (Tertiary)
I think it's a little clearer, and has the added advantage of being able to display ranges immediately for clarity, instead of dealing with terms like "Terminal" for "Point-Blank," which is a bit confusing (since Terminal typically means "end"), and without having to math out how useful the weapon is after Terminal range but before Arming range.
Arturo Sanchez:
--- Quote from: Atruejedi on November 17, 2015, 03:26:56 am ---I have nothing to add as of now, but this is my post expressing support for Richard's above ideas.
Okay, nevermind, I started fantasizing about this. A third ammo type could...
--- End quote ---
He's not talking about ammo type. What the actual...
Richard LeMoon:
I bought this up on a Fireside chat again, and one concern was that new players would not understand it and it may add too much complexity. Given that most new players do not read guides or ask questions, and rarely know about arming time, this may seem the case at first glance. But then you have to stop and think. They don't even know about arming time, one of the most defining features of the most powerful guns. Adding a falloff mechanic would not only negate some of that (making armed guns a little more useful at close ranges), it would not even be noticed by most players. All they would see would be guns that could shoot further with a higher hit rate, and other guns that did not seem completely under powered at close ranges.
Without thinking about the numbers, just the perceivable effects, how do you think new players would view the added game complexity of the falloff mechanic described in this thread? Would it be too confusing? Would it even be noticed? Would giving Flaks better close range abilities (some shatter or peircing) without changing long range kill power be good or bad for new players?
Atruejedi:
--- Quote from: Third Strike on February 28, 2016, 09:17:14 pm ---
--- Quote from: Atruejedi on November 17, 2015, 03:26:56 am ---I have nothing to add as of now, but this is my post expressing support for Richard's above ideas.
Okay, nevermind, I started fantasizing about this. A third ammo type could...
--- End quote ---
He's not talking about ammo type. What the actual...
--- End quote ---
Was a typo. I obviously meant damage type. Couldn't edit the post. Calm down, son.
--- Quote from: Richard LeMoon on July 31, 2016, 05:58:26 pm ---I bought this up on a Fireside chat again, and one concern was that new players would not understand it and it may add too much complexity. Given that most new players do not read guides or ask questions, and rarely know about arming time, this may seem the case at first glance. But then you have to stop and think. They don't even know about arming time, one of the most defining features of the most powerful guns. Adding a falloff mechanic would not only negate some of that (making armed guns a little more useful at close ranges), it would not even be noticed by most players. All they would see would be guns that could shoot further with a higher hit rate, and other guns that did not seem completely under powered at close ranges.
Without thinking about the numbers, just the perceivable effects, how do you think new players would view the added game complexity of the falloff mechanic described in this thread? Would it be too confusing? Would it even be noticed? Would giving Flaks better close range abilities (some shatter or peircing) without changing long range kill power be good or bad for new players?
--- End quote ---
As we've discussed via other means, your system would increase the skill ceiling while making #AllHitsMatter. No longer would shooting the wrong component with the wrong ammo and the wrong weapon result in absolute uselessness. More pewpew = more fun. Everybody wins.
Dementio:
--- Quote from: Richard LeMoon on July 31, 2016, 05:58:26 pm ---I bought this up on a Fireside chat again, and one concern was that new players would not understand it and it may add too much complexity.
--- End quote ---
New players don't even know about the limits of gun arcs or the most basic of synergies between piercing and explosive guns. In fact, new players literally don't know anything, because they just joined the game. To them though, this addition to the game makes very little difference, as it doesn't even have to apply most of the time.
While the ship and lobby game can get very deep and counters are found in unexpected places, the actual guns themselves only are so complex. Single guns are easily countered and most of the time only have one ammo type. Your proposed idea would make a lot of useful ships actually viable in some sense. Spires, Fish, Galleon's long range side, which gets completely nullified in close range. Some long range builds may decide to bring ammo types oriented after the falloff damage type when they expect to be needing more damage output in close range (Mobula vs Squid/Fish).
Although not a necessary addition, I would still like to see this added to the game.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version