Mantis Bug Tracker
Main | My View | View Issues | Vote Tallies | FAQ
  

View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
IDProjectCategoryDate SubmittedLast Update
0002024AI WarSuggestion - Balance TweaksDec 12, 2010 5:12 amJan 15, 2011 11:31 pm
Reportermr_lolz 
Assigned Tokeith.lamothe 
Severityfeature 
StatusconsideringResolutionopen 
Product Version4.049 
Fixed in Version 
Summary0002024: Suggestion: Acid Sprayer concept
DescriptionAcid Sprayer Proposal

***STATS***
HP: 70,000*MK (not multiplied by 7, this is the exact amount of HP for high ship. for normal ship it would be doubled?)
Armour: 0
Type: Light (countered by frigates/MRLS, which makes sense considering low speed, low range)
Speed: 18
Attack: 4,000 + 4000*MK
Range: 1000

***ABILITIES***

Attack does damage equal to Base Attack/(0.2*Square Root of Target's Armour), where Target's Armour has a minimal value of 25.

eg. If an MK I Acid Sprayer fired upon an MK I Stealth Battleship (0 Armour), it would inflict 8000/0.2*?25:= 8000 Damage
     If an MK I Acid Sprayer fired upon an MK I Fighter (150 Armour), it would inflict 8000/0.2*?150:= 3333 Damage (-150 for armour)
     If an MK I Acid Sprayer fired upon an MK I Bomber (600 Armour), it would inflict 8000/0.2*?600 = 1666 Damage (-600 for armour)

***CONCEPT***

The original idea of the acid sprayer was a ship that melted the exotic components of Alien ships. Since Spire ships in particular have no armour, and many of the Zenith remnant have low armour, it makes sense that the acid sprayer would be best suited to dominating unarmoured ships. meanwhile, even light armour plate protects from the worst of acid corrosion, reducing damage significantly.

The basic idea now is a slow, fairly tough/unarmoured and very short ranged ship, with an attack that is devestating against unarmoured targets but ineffective against armoured ones. Its low speed and range also makes it ineffective against fast and autoskirmishing types. what it will do well is melt spireships, unarmoured swarm types and anything else lacking in the ol' armour plate.

edit: The square root sign is showing up a '?', use your imagination
TagsNo tags attached.
Internal Weight
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
(0006063)
Suzera (reporter)
Dec 12, 2010 1:30 pm
edited on: Dec 12, 2010 1:38 pm

 This doesn't seem to be worth making the fleet move 15% slower.

You left out the refire rate.

This really seems like you need to increase your exponent above -.5. After things hit mk 3, it's going to be doing the same weak or at least samey damage to a lot of different stuff.

I like the concept, but your math needs sanity checking. Maybe if the .2 multiplier was inside the sqrt, but a sqrt still seems too strong a reduction.

It should also probably 999k armor pierce to keep the math simpler, so armor isn't relied on twice.

They're going more for linearization of stats, and 4000+4000*mk is going to be weaker than that for a ship that ALREADY scales poorly against higher mks.
(0006066)
mr_lolz (reporter)
Dec 12, 2010 2:09 pm

 yeah the math is a bit wonky :)
(0006067)
keith.lamothe (administrator)
Dec 12, 2010 2:41 pm

 Yea, any "multiplied by percent of..." thing like the Z-polarizer, IRE, or youngling vulture really has trouble getting balanced damage. But I've started using a method where there's a minimum multiplier (and generally a maximum multiplier) for each of those cases, to ensure a basic minimum of combat-usefulness for those units. Such a thing could be used here.
(0007780)
x4000 (administrator)
Jan 7, 2011 5:05 pm

 Keith, I'll let you decide on this one...
(0008624)
x4000 (administrator)
Jan 15, 2011 11:28 pm

 Definitely for after 5.0, if we do this.
(0008626)
TechSY730 (reporter)
Jan 15, 2011 11:31 pm
edited on: Jan 15, 2011 11:32 pm

 Having an "inverse Zenith-polarizer" ship may be cool, but I'm not sure if replacing an existing unit to do so is a good idea, even if the existing unit is not that great outside of its niche job. May make a pretty cool new ship type though.

Issue Community Support
Only registered users can voice their support. Click here to register, or here to log in.
Supporters: No one explicitly supports this issue yet.
Opponents: No one explicitly opposes this issue yet.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
Dec 12, 2010 5:12 am mr_lolz New Issue
Dec 12, 2010 5:22 am mr_lolz Description Updated View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 11:40 am mr_lolz Description Updated View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:30 pm Suzera Note Added: 0006063
Dec 12, 2010 1:31 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:31 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:35 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:35 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:35 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:36 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:37 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:37 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:37 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 1:38 pm Suzera Note Edited: 0006063 View Revisions
Dec 12, 2010 2:09 pm mr_lolz Note Added: 0006066
Dec 12, 2010 2:41 pm keith.lamothe Note Added: 0006067
Jan 7, 2011 5:05 pm x4000 Note Added: 0007780
Jan 7, 2011 5:05 pm x4000 Assigned To => keith.lamothe
Jan 7, 2011 5:05 pm x4000 Status new => acknowledged
Jan 15, 2011 11:28 pm x4000 Note Added: 0008624
Jan 15, 2011 11:28 pm x4000 Status acknowledged => considering
Jan 15, 2011 11:31 pm TechSY730 Note Added: 0008626
Jan 15, 2011 11:32 pm TechSY730 Note Edited: 0008626 View Revisions

Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker