Then we’re back at the same problem of trying to cram all weapons in the same power range. It’s not the number of power levels that’s the issue, it’s whether they all should be made to fit within that number.
I’m sure there’s a book-keeping benefit in making everything X levels, but it comes at a price: flexibility. What if the next weapon that gets added only makes sense to have X/2 levels? Or 2*X levels? What if we want a weapon that takes longer to “power up”, but the pay-off is increased maximum DPS?
Why should we artificially impose equal power levels as a constraint? Just to make the spreadsheet tables neater?
I’d rather have a new ship with a single differentiating mechanic (i.e., one that doesn’t depend upon the traditional heat bar), that applies equally to all weapons used by it. That would be fun. Maybe if new weapons are added to a specific set of ships that use distinct mechanics, maybe there would be room. As far as the traditional fighter/bomber series is concerned for me anyways, adding more weapons is going to make the game feel oversaturated.
Oh, and also check out the topics where I discuss one possible mechanic.
From competitive view, it should be. If one strategy is obviously better than the rest, then only that one would be meta, and everything else is obsolete.
I wonder why you contradict yourself to be consistent at some things, while at other things not.
Then, we come to another issue, if a weapon has 2x levels but only paid off at later fp, no one (LITERALLY NO ONE) will use it at lower fp since there’s lot of options which are obviously better than it. While at high fp that weapon will outshine everything makes it obviously the only choice if you want to get better performance. And then we have stuffs like Bomber, like Orandza said, which also complicate the issue, Bomber won’t have any chance to access the good side of 2x level weapon, while might be overpowered using x/2 level weapon. I assume you don’t want things like that.
There’s more things to consider, players respect more for a well-balanced game than a adding-stuffs-holic games but broken. I’ve played some games that love to add new stuffs while let old stuffs forgotten, succumb to death (of usage) because they’re not even worth to use.
Why does this mean we ſhould make all weapons fit the ſame mold? Wouldn’t it be leſs obviöus if they were all different? That’d make the optimiſation problem harder.
Alſo, as far as weapon balancing goes, the way you know if there’s a problem is by obſerving weapon uſage rates, not the weapon’s theoretical performance.
Although, if you make it appear leſs than other weapons, they might. Alternatively, you could make it appear only when the player’s firepower is under 20, or whatever. This problem is not inſurmountable.
Your alternative solution requires even more EXCEPTIONS which also contradicts for the sake of consistency.
Yes, but there are way more people will be badmouthing because it’s bR0k3n. Which we should avoid that. Before adding something, existing problems should be fixed first.
Anyway, staying alive to gain >10fp is hard enough, so I wonder when it will pay-off if you barely ever to reach it?
That depends on a) the difficulty you chooſe, and b) how much you upgrade your gun.
If you play a fair amount and it’s that hard, it’s probably ſelf-inflicted.
Consistency differs from uniformity. Consistency in the game mechanics is desirable (and is essential when it comes to implementation & maintenance), but uniformity in weapons is not.
You make some good points, however. I understand your reasoning.
I don’t think making all 15 weapons equally “competitive” is a worthwhile goal. I would consider having even half of them competitively viable a great success.
Also, I’d like to be able to add a few more weapons to the roster over the coming years. They don’t all have to be equally useful in “competitive” play. They might be quirky. They might only apply to specific enemies/circumstances/missions. They might cater to different playing styles. They might even be inside jokes.
Absolver is a good (existing) example of this. Making it conform to competitive ‘specifications’ would destroy its character.
Keep in mind that:
Not everyone plays CI “competitively”.
Player skill on this forum is waaaay above casual or even average levels.
What makes the game fun for casual players is not the same as what makes it fun for you (the experts).
The game will not be viable if it only caters to the top 1%, no matter how “well-balanced” it is.
I’ve changed them both to 10 levels. It’s very minor, really. I don’t see why it’s creating so much friction, but if it makes balancing a little easier, then so be it.
If we’re going to break the mold, let’s go big, having e.g. 5 or 15 power levels. Otherwise it all just blends together.
I think the current damage of Boron is fine - before the heat bug got fixed, I cleared an (admittedly easy) Boss Rush with it almost 50% faster than I could with any other weapon (and I was timing it, so I can be sure).
Well, with a worse heat sink, you can hit high levels much easier, which is kind of a disadvantage for people with better heatsinks. For heat-based weapons only, lower heat levels should be buffed to balance the longer time it takes to hit heat levels.
It makes sense from both a gameplay and a scientific standpoint, in my opinion, to actually give better heat sinks extra damage levels that they can hit at the higher heat values.
That way, there’s no disadvantage to using a higher heat sink, but you don’t essentially negate the heat management side of things either.
