PW EMP

[Compellor]

QUOTE (SpaceJunk @ May 21 2009, 12:49 PM) A quick and dirty test.

Dreg Hvy Int, 10KB vs Dreg Outpost, EMP 1, PW damage GA 1, no base shields GA. It took about 110s to drop half the shield. The ammo runs out at that point (with one rack of fuel).

Same with EMP 2, PW damage GA 2. 105s to fully shoot down the shields.

6666 shld
66*1.1=72.6 shld repair rate
109*72.6+(6666/2)=11246 total shield hitpoints removed
11246/(3*110)=34.1 damage per second per gun vs minor bases
34.1/1.21 = 28.2 dps with KB and GA removed
28.2*2 = 56.3 dps vs other shields.
56.3/(9/.25) = 1.56: Thanks to AoE, PW EMP 1 is doing about 1.56 times as much damage as we would expect from the direct fire damage alone.

104*72.6+(6666)=14216 total shield hitpoints removed
14216/(3*105)=45.1 damage per second per gun vs minor bases
45.1/1.331 = 33.9 dps with KB and GAs removed
33.9*2 = 67.8 dps vs other shields.
67.8/(11.25/.25) = 1.51: Thanks to AoE, PW EMP 2 is doing about 1.51 times as much damage as we would expect from the direct fire damage alone.

Since these results are based on a "quick and dirty" test, I wouldn't call them definitive. I think it's reasonable to suggest that AoE causes PW EMP to do between 1.5 and 2 times its direct damage against bases, which are easy to hit. Might tend to do just the AoE damage against small ships.

If PW EMP 1 does roughly 1.5x base damage vs capship shields, then it does roughly 1.4x as much damage as Mini 3.

I think perhaps a small damage increase and an increase in damage vs minor bases (say from .5 to .75) is in order. I would hesitate to double damage, seeing as EMP 1 already does slightly more damage vs shields than dis2 (again using 1.5x AoE modifier).

[SouthPaw]

EMP is only useful for the duration of the time between TT and HTT+SRM EMP.

If I am the commander I would ALWAYS put the money into HTT/SRM EMP rather than EMP cannons. TT is just a cash and time hurdle before HTTs.

In 3 years, I have only ever seen TT successfully used once. That was in a squadgame in which our opponent was vastly out-teched and their base thoroughly camped - AND guess what? We dropped shields with a bbr, not EMP ints.

These two issues tell me what I need to know about TT and EMP - if an exp team needs anti base tech in the midgame they buy bbrs.

SUGGESTION: Perk EMP against caps only. Make it exps viable anti-cap tech. Remove it from treasures.
RADICAL SUGGESTION: Remove TT, add cost onto HTT research and SRM EMP. Perk HTT slightly.

[Adept]

QUOTE (SouthPaw @ May 22 2009, 02:51 PM) SUGGESTION: Perk EMP against caps only. Make it exps viable anti-cap tech. Remove it from treasures.
RADICAL SUGGESTION: Remove TT, add cost onto HTT research and SRM EMP. Perk HTT slightly.

I like both.

Anti cap tech needs a serious look anyway. Dis / EMP should be used to drop the heavy shields, and Gat / galv / and minigun should be used to chew through the hull.

Make EMP useful by:

a) Have minigun do rubbish damabe vs. cap shield
b) Have minigun do ok damage vs. cap hull, about the same dps for a mini 3 heavy int as a gat 3 adv fig. Galv should perk the damage of figs to maybe 150-200% of the mini 3 heavy int, to keep some sup edge, or rather to compensate for the fact that the cap can kill the adv figs much faster than the heavy ints.

TT is just a relic to slow down the road to HTTs. Put a delay into HTT research is that is needed.


/edit changed language to be more clear

[Papsmear]

I have successfully captured bases with bomber/TT combinations in the past, it doesn't happen often but it does happen.
This is a teamwork game and I like the idea of ints using emp cannons to take down shields and a TT capturing a base. Bump emp cannons versus base shields and cap ship shields as they are pretty much useless versus both.

[BobtheHobo]

QUOTE (Adept @ May 22 2009, 08:00 AM) TT is just a relic to slow down the road to HTTs. Put a delay into HTT research is that is needed.

But TT doesn't have to be a relic. I think that the more ships and guns and options we have in a game (to an extent) make the game more fun. Making the TT a viable tech allows for new strategies and new options during a game and that is a good thing right?

[SpaceJunk]

Imagine that galvs were underpowered, and they were removed because they are just a hurdle to FigBees, instead of perking them to what they are now.

Sometimes there are windows of opportunity for a couple galvers or a TT team that you may not be able to exploit with the heavier tech.

[lexaal]

Not all techs and ships need to be useful. I don't see any improvement if TTs are removed

I'd rather have 20 techs like the old retro booster, EMP gun, TT, that are never used instead of the one tech imbalancing this game.

[RoboTel]

I think the general agreement here is that if PW EMP is perked such that it does reasonable damage to base shields it would make TTs more valid as a means of securing enemy light bases, especially if they gained the ability to mount it. I generally agree that I dislike the Exp mid-game because there is nothing like this.

I still think that it requires a buff along the lines of double, but I think it would be best if it was just given a moderate buff, then we could see the results from that. Increase it again if necessary.

[Compellor]

QUOTE (lexaal @ May 22 2009, 12:32 PM) Not all techs and ships need to be useful. I don't see any improvement if TTs are removed

I'd rather have 20 techs like the old retro booster, EMP gun, TT, that are never used instead of the one tech imbalancing this game.

I have an idea, let's have 5 guns for every ship, except only two of them are at all useful and one is clearly the best. Then we can laugh at the noobs who use the wrong guns.

[lexaal]

If you change a bit about a useless thing it may still be usefull but if you change a bit about a useful thing it may be overpowered.