Posted by: Papa Palps
« on: January 02, 2017, 03:21:20 AM »Any news on this? The Antiveryheavy attribute really hurts the damage of a lot of ships with either a 50% or 60% decrease in damage.
Posted by: Indignation211
« on: November 17, 2016, 01:45:02 PM »Now that we're closer to 1.1, have the damage modifiers been looked at again? Or are they going to be the same as 1.0?
Posted by: Corey
« on: September 12, 2016, 12:26:56 PM »They work like that already. They've always worked like that.
Posted by: Illidan Stormrage
« on: September 10, 2016, 09:29:55 PM »You should design certain fighters to be better. E-wings and A-wings should do more damage then X-wings.
Posted by: Slornie
« on: September 01, 2016, 12:47:27 PM »Second, I reread your first reply and caught something I missed before: its a quad TURBOlaser?! Like, isn't that ISD-grade weaponry? How did they fit that on a bomber?It's a starfighter grade turbolaser rather than a capital ship grade turbolaser. Technically it's an augmented multi-stage quad laser cannon which is just described as a turbolaser.
Posted by: Indignation211
« on: August 31, 2016, 07:12:47 PM »Two things.
First, i redid my math because i neglected to account for the damage modifier for anti-very heavy damage vs capital armor (only 60% damage...) with this the K-Wing actually has almost 2.7x the DPS of the B-Wing. I know we just established these modifiers are subject to change but yeah this is what it is now.
Second, I reread your first reply and caught something I missed before: its a quad TURBOlaser?! Like, isn't that ISD-grade weaponry? How did they fit that on a bomber?
First, i redid my math because i neglected to account for the damage modifier for anti-very heavy damage vs capital armor (only 60% damage...) with this the K-Wing actually has almost 2.7x the DPS of the B-Wing. I know we just established these modifiers are subject to change but yeah this is what it is now.
Second, I reread your first reply and caught something I missed before: its a quad TURBOlaser?! Like, isn't that ISD-grade weaponry? How did they fit that on a bomber?
Posted by: Corey
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:52:52 PM »Quote
Okay I could have sworn the AF's quad lasers did capital damage at one point, but maybe i'm mistaken. I was thinking the AF was underpowered, but after studying it some more I think I finally figured out its selling points.
It's possible they were and I forgot, however they were always intended to be the way they are in 1.0.
Quote
Still I question having such a powerful weapon on a bomber. If my math is right, the K-Wing does twice as much DPS as a B-Wing even with Bomber Superiority maxed out. Basically K-Wings seem overpowered even with the 2x supply cost in my opinion, and using them over B-Wings also renders Bomber Superiority moot.
It's always represented as being incredibly powerful. As far as it being the obvious choice above B-Wings, I'd also typically agree, however the only ships that can produce K-Wings in the first place are the Nebula, Endurance and Viscount. And I think Home One may have it as well.
Posted by: Indignation211
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:26:20 PM »Thanks for the response!
Okay I could have sworn the AF's quad lasers did capital damage at one point, but maybe i'm mistaken. I was thinking the AF was underpowered, but after studying it some more I think I finally figured out its selling points.
Damage modifiers aren't finalized. Good to know.
The A-Wing I'll just say its for game balance and leave it at that.
As for the K-Wing I do now see that it's a turbolaser (I dont know why I thought it was a quad laser). Still I question having such a powerful weapon on a bomber. If my math is right, the K-Wing does twice as much DPS as a B-Wing even with Bomber Superiority maxed out. Basically K-Wings seem overpowered even with the 2x supply cost in my opinion, and using them over B-Wings also renders Bomber Superiority moot.
Okay I could have sworn the AF's quad lasers did capital damage at one point, but maybe i'm mistaken. I was thinking the AF was underpowered, but after studying it some more I think I finally figured out its selling points.
Damage modifiers aren't finalized. Good to know.
The A-Wing I'll just say its for game balance and leave it at that.
As for the K-Wing I do now see that it's a turbolaser (I dont know why I thought it was a quad laser). Still I question having such a powerful weapon on a bomber. If my math is right, the K-Wing does twice as much DPS as a B-Wing even with Bomber Superiority maxed out. Basically K-Wings seem overpowered even with the 2x supply cost in my opinion, and using them over B-Wings also renders Bomber Superiority moot.
Posted by: Corey
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:11:39 PM »Quote
So I noticed that the Assault Frigate's quad lasers were nerfed from capital to anti-very light damage. This is all well and good except the K-Wing's quad laser still deals capital damage. Is there a reason for this? Personally I find it weird for a fighters lasers to deal more damage than its warheads against enemy ships. Meanwhile the Assault Frigate takes a hit to its firepower.
They were always this way, and they're also different types of weaponry. The AF weapons that are Anti Very Light are laser cannons, which are all antiverylight in the mod. Its turbolasers are its third weapon slot. The Assault Frigate's weaponry has always been primarily laser cannons both in canon and in the mod. The Capital weapon on the K-Wing is for its Turbolaser (not laser cannon), which, considering its recharge timer, can put out more damage depending on the target. The K-Wing canonically has a dual laser turret, quad turbolaser turret and its warhead slot.
Quote
Also, why do torpedoes and missiles deal anti-very heavy damage? As far as I can tell no ship has the very heavy armor type. Wouldnt it be simpler if they just did capital damage like normal ship weapons?
Even if they don't use that specific armour type, when we actually go through and change the modifiers how we want to, each weapon type having its own modifier set is better. Ultimately antiveryheavy will have different modifiers than just regular turbolasers (it already does, but not quite the ones we want yet). Antiveryheavy doesn't just do extra damage to veryheavy armour; the names themselves are kind of irrelevant to the modifier set behind them.
Quote
Lastly why do A-wings have higher laser damage than X-wings (30 compared to about 25)?
As in interceptor, we want it to more reliably be able to destroy fighters it comes across.
Posted by: Indignation211
« on: August 31, 2016, 01:35:54 PM »So I noticed that the Assault Frigate's quad lasers were nerfed from capital to anti-very light damage. This is all well and good except the K-Wing's quad laser still deals capital damage. Is there a reason for this? Personally I find it weird for a fighters lasers to deal more damage than its warheads against enemy ships. Meanwhile the Assault Frigate takes a hit to its firepower.
Also, why do torpedoes and missiles deal anti-very heavy damage? As far as I can tell no ship has the very heavy armor type. Wouldnt it be simpler if they just did capital damage like normal ship weapons?
Lastly why do A-wings have higher laser damage than X-wings (30 compared to about 25)?
Also, why do torpedoes and missiles deal anti-very heavy damage? As far as I can tell no ship has the very heavy armor type. Wouldnt it be simpler if they just did capital damage like normal ship weapons?
Lastly why do A-wings have higher laser damage than X-wings (30 compared to about 25)?