Energy Weapon Analysis

[StellarRat]

From Wikipedia: "Laser beams begin to cause plasma breakdown in the atmosphere at energy densities of around one megajoule per cubic centimetre. This effect, called "blooming," causes the laser to defocus and disperse energy into the surrounding air. Blooming can be more severe if there is fog, smoke, or dust in the air."

As I read that, basically the more energy you put into it (joules), the worse it is. The amount of energy it takes to delivery a high energy beam versus a low energy isn't free. The higher the intensity, the worse the dissipation effect is.

Granted, this isn't intended to be a scientific equation. I found it to be the easiest way to calculate the total energy of a battery, given what I have to work with.

If anyone has suggestions as to how to better take the range into account I welcome them. But I'd like to hear some reasoning to back it up.

Indeed...There are probably ways to work around that like firing multiple sub-mega joule pulses instead of one big pulse. Or using multiple separate beams that converge on the target.

[rynait]

Hello,

I believe i have to disagree with the so called analysis.

the laser dissapation "blooming" is the same regardless of energy output.

bloom is result on the "element's 'color light' absorbion". The molecules do not become dense or change elemental behavior, when hit by higher energy (compared to lower energy hits).

The blooming is the effect the molecules-element absorb some % of the 'color energy'. so the % of energy absorbed from high energy is the same as low energy. This implies the distance of a high energy laser is going futher longer [distance] than low energy laser, assuming you want the Burn-vaporize, or for sake of game, damage.

Plasma unforuntately suffer different kind of "blooming" but could not be presented, I don't have such facts to back this but putting things here as logical deduction from xeno perspective..

Plasma is based on 'intermediate atomic excitment state [is either or combination of thermal, magnetic, or electric].

Since plasma mass [from xeno gun] has to deal with atmospheric molecule-element and has some sort of 'force field'. So the "bloom" would be logically dealt as

a) force field is 'eroded' by atmospheric mass, resulting in plasma mass collaspe [poof...]

b) atmospheric mass absorbs some of the plasma mass' state, changing the plasma mass into different state [weak or strong]

c) plasma mass absorbs the atmospheric mass becoming heavier [short range?]

d) only valid fact i can find, mixed elements prevents plasma to be formed in low energy gas discharge, lightning in rain storm generates high energy... mimimum 1 gV.

thus you are not supposed to compare laser to plasma. they both have different energy coeffiicents; therefore different rules governing "weaponizing effect".

R

[Ishantil]

From what I've been able to gather from from various articles about thermal blooming, the effect would be exactly the same...assuming that the plasma wasn't contained in a force field (and actually, plasma weapons wouldn't work at all, except with this fictional field). In fact, the effect would be worse on plasma due to the addition it's charged. Since the field contains the plasma bolt, we must assume that it collapses when it impact a solid mass. At that point the plasma would burn whatever it touched at high temperatures.

For the sake of total energy delivery (measured against a single power source), I still like my formula. Feel free to suggest something better, rynait. And I appreciate you taking the time to post about it.

[StellarRat]

Well, plasma can be contained by a strong magnetic field. I'm not exactly sure how the field would stay in place once it left the barrel (or whatever you'd call it) of the weapon. If the plasma round had a solid magnetic generator component it might actually work. The round could be propelled by expending plasma out the back like a rocket. So, it would get weaker as it traveled.

[Ishantil]

Too many diminishing returns. It would be far better to make a better rocket. Plasma weaponry doesn't really work well in atmosphere, the advantages are fairly easily overcome and the actual delivery of energy isn't that good. In fact, it would be a lot like a blowtorch.

The only way you'd get it to work is for handwavery to solve the major problems with it. Even said, ceramic plates would work really well against it. The gaviton particle supposedly keeps the field cohesive long enough for it to strike the target.

Plasma guns are cool though.

[Ishantil]

Okay, so after some careful consideration of this discussion, I think I'm going to create separate formulas for each weapon type, taking into consideration the various variables.

I think I'm going to reduce the effect that range has, but I am not sure about how much. I'll need to take a better look at the in game lore to form a better idea of what the plasma calculation should be.

Keep in mind, the purpose is to balance the weapons energy output against themselves, rather than the various eras. Meaning to make the weapons make sense in that they all use the same power cell.

I think I'll add in the MAG weapons as well. Just for fun.

[Elydo]

One of the concerns with the LMG class is what its primary function is. Early on, the LMG itself is not really a kill weapon, it's a suppression weapon. You have a high capacity ammunition box because you're going to be loosing a lot of shots downrange to suppress the aliens while other weapons move into optimal position and make the kills. This takes a number of turns, but the high ammo count allows for sustained fire. But later version seem to become kill weapons, as the aliens become increasingly harder to suppress and the ammo count goes right down. A plasmacaster can be fired three times before it needs reloaded, which then takes the same amount of ap as firing. This means, unless you have soldiers with enough ap to fire twice in a turn (which takes a long time to achieve) You can fire for effect over three turns, then you have to spend one reloading.

I have rarely seen a higher tier (soldier up, certainly warrior) alien suppressed from one burst of a plasmacaster. Occasionally sustained fire over subsequent turns can manage it, but then the lost turn undoes most of the lingering effect. They are not a good suppression weapon. But they aren't quite right for a kill weapon either, the accuracy is too low to hit aliens behind cover and the damage is too low to shred the cover they're behind. One or other would work. But I'd offer that later models along the LMG line have an identity problem.

Suppression weapons should be good at suppressing and maintaining that suppression. Best modus opperandi; getting into position and sustaining fire to facilitate maneuver of other combat elements. Kill weapons should be good at killing; putting rounds on target and doing damage when they do. A middle ground between those two functions is somewhat useless, as it doesn't accomplish either.

Having all the weapons opperate from the same cell is a difficult hurdle, but at the least dramatically lowering the reload ap cost would help. Reloading an LMG is slightly more involved than a quick mag change, so it makes sense to have a high ap cost there, but it's balanced by not having to reload all that often. If something like the plasmacaster was developed to use a quick-change cell system like the other weapons of its tier, it wouldn't need a representative ap cost reflecting an involved reloading requirement.

[Ishantil]

Reloading a rocket launcher or machine gun should be fairly involved, like 40AP.

Slapping a clip in a rifle, pistol, or whatever, should be easy to do, say 20-30AP

I agree with your overall assessment of the machine gun weapons.

I don't think that weapons should be forced into roles like that, either. I machine gun is great for suppressing. It's also great at chewing up medium (lightly armored) targets, putting holes in cover, and generally making a nuisance of itself as far as the enemy is concerned.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Ishantil

[Elydo]

Reloading a rocket launcher or machine gun should be fairly involved, like 40AP.

Slapping a clip in a rifle, pistol, or whatever, should be easy to do, say 20-30AP

But for the later machine guns, all you're doing is slapping in a clip.

[Ishantil]

I was agreeing with you. It should be 30 to reload the scatter laser/whatever.

[StellarRat]

The ballastic shotgun should take a long time to reload too. You have to shove the shells into the internal magazine one at a time by hand. In my original shotgun mod I made the reload time 45 AP.

[Ishantil]

I was never able to find the post E4D made about what all the guns are.

Is that shotgun a pump or an autoloader?

[EchoFourDelta]

The one in-game looks like it's intended to be an M590A1, but lacks the necessary bayonet lug. Manually-operated pump-action operating system, 12-gauge, 8-round tube magazine, plus one in the pipe.

Reloading one is a fairly time-consuming process; assuming you're not on a nice, calm gun range, and you're not snatching up a big ol' handful of shells out of a pocket, cuz you might drop one. The last shot gets fired, you pull the pump back, ejecting the last empty, drop a fresh shell into the open ejection port, send the slide forward (this puts one in the chamber), and then you shove 8 more shells up through the gate, one by one, about 2 seconds per, maybe a little less if you're about quick as hell.

Topping off an empty 870 is actually a bit more time-consuming than reloading an M249 or M240. There, you're just dropping an empty plastic box, attaching a new one, popping the feed tray cover, dropping the belt on top, closing the tray, and charging the action.

Edited September 20, 2013 by EchoFourDelta

[Josip Broz Tito]

Completely disagree about machine guns not being kill weapons at any stage of the game. I've gotten most of my in-game kills from machine guns. Only part I agree with is that they switch out of a suppression role.

This is fine, they become the go-to heavy weapon for breaching doors open, destroying cover, and killing with intact equipment. They dramatically outpace rocket launchers in destructive capability over a mission by far.

It takes anywhere from 2-3 hits with a machine gun to kill early aliens, and quickly drops to 1-2 (rarely 3) with lasers and plasmacasters.

By the time you get those, your machinegunners can fire twice, and the guns are more accurate (the tooltip accuracy % is bugged IMO). This means that your first few rounds tend to annihilate whatever cover the alien is using, and the rest tend to hit (and kill).

In the previous build I gave all of my troops (except the snipers) plasmacasters and did even better than when I had rifles. Scatter lasers and plasmacasters are death-machines. They get even better with Predator armor! I can only imagine how the mag-storm is *drools*

[Ishantil]

Slapping a fresh magazine/power cell into a weapon: 25

Slapping a fresh large magazine/power cell into a weapon: 25

Attaching a new box of ammunition to a machine gun: 30

Slotting 8 shotshells into a tubular magazine: 35

Loading a new rocket into a rocket launcher: 40

This would of course apply to both sides.

I see that with the addition of E4D that all the usual suspects are now in my thread.

[EchoFourDelta]

(the tooltip accuracy % is bugged IMO)

The tooltips on the equip screen are hella inaccurate.

Also, yeah. MAG weapons.

I love the MAGs. They're so bad~.

Edited September 20, 2013 by EchoFourDelta

[Elydo]

@Josep: I was talking about the primary aspect of the weapon, not it's complete functionality. I get most of my kills from my machine gunners as well, heh, but that's almost an unintended side effect. LMGs are not supposed to be 'better' rifles, if they're a better performance choice than rifles then some rebalancing needs to be done. Personally I think at least the ballistic machine gun is fine, I usually skip the scatter laser so I can't really say much about it but plasmacasters for certain aren't quite spot on yet. They 'either' have: too few shots per cell, too high reloading cost, too high firing cost, too low accuracy (for hitting behind cover) or too low damage (for the purposes of chewing cover). And regardless lack the ability to suppress much beyond the carriers libido (who needs sex when you have GUN). The latter three I don't consider to be where the problem lies or in need of alteration, rather changing them in some fashion would give the 'caster a different role on the battlefield.

I may be misguided, but I generally consider each weapon to have a tactical function:

Pistols are versatile (one handed and low ap firing),

Shotguns/Carbines are close range and responsive (bonus to reaction shots),

Rifles are multi-role generalists,

Precision rifles are target elimination (reach out and touch someone),

LMGs are battlefield control,

and RAWKET LAWNCHAIRS are battlefield... rearrangement.

Obviously there's a lot of overlap and the fundamental purpose of each and every weapon is to kill the aliens, but how they go about facilitating that purpose should be different or else why have the different weapon? Plasmacasters indeed retain the increased ability to kill a target, especially at close range, due to the sheer number of shots they put out. But they can no longer do much else. They've become generalist weapons of a slightly different sort to rifles, effectively a heavy rifle that lacks single shot capability (and man have I wished they had that sometimes).

[Josip Broz Tito]

I disagree fully on plasmacasters: they are spot on where they should be, except for magazine size.

When you get them= the game changes. You can now handle multiple elites in a fast manner.

+Number of shots= fine, it's already throwing out 500+ dmg if they all hit something. Any more would be ridiculous in close-range fights.

+Damage= 1-2shots elites (usually 2)

+Accuracy= more accurate than the tooltip shows: plus the MGer using it will have high acc because of the 70 str requirement to wield it. Most shots will be hitting within the green range, or at least be so close as to kill aliens near the first/destroy cover.

+Cover destruction= no clue what you're talking about. 1-2 shots most cover. Considering you can literally fill a backpack with magazines, the map could be all cover for all I care.

+Firing cost= it'd better stay 40TU's. Any lower would be ridiculous. Can already fire twice per turn with any soldier able to carry it. Any higher and you run the risk of making the caster a poor choice versus the launcher or sniper rifle.

-Magazine ammo count= it could be higher, but considering how powerful the plasmacaster is, it might not be wise to boost it.

-Suppression= It supresses OK, but I feel that's more a symptom of fighting elites. Could be boosted, could be left as is= idc.

The ability to turn rockets in the inventory to make more fit in a backpack would bring the launcher up to par w/ the higher MG's.

As for it being better than the rifle= that was my personal experience. I should have prefaced this by mentioning that I prefer to stand back and shoot through the cover aliens are using rather than flank (safer that way IMO). My supersoldiers could all use the plasmacaster to its fullest, so I did so. More aggressive players might get better mileage out of using other weapon sets.

[Waladil]

I've got a question:

Why, NOW, do all the laser/plasma weapons use the same batteries? Originally they all used the same batteries because the player had to manufacture them, and manufacturing 10 sniper batteries, 30 rifle batteries, 5 LMG batteries, etc would be a huge headache so it just became 45 batteries total. Instead of doing this debate about whether or not batteries have similar amounts of efficiency, the art can just be changed and batteries diversified (possibly keeping a few cross-compatibilities: shotgun/rifle/sniper seem like they should use the same batteries at similar efficiency).

That way we have the realists (Ishantil) satisfied by different levels of power coming out of different batteries altogether, and the gameplay purists (Gorlom) satisfied by the game remaining balanced in gameplay terms.

EDIT: Possibly also make LMG batteries larger and/or heavier, and pistol batteries lighter (can't make them smaller, unless someone figures out a way to make clips fit 2/space)

Edited September 21, 2013 by Waladil

[Elydo]

Against single targets I'd agree with you. But for single targets every weapon has an appropriate approach. At the plasma tier you are about as deadly as the aliens, and it comes down to spotting and approach. The experiences I'm recalling when thinking about how I'd want the MGs to be different are typically room breaching in alien bases. That large central room where you can get 20+ aliens already in cover and really pissed you're keeping them from watching hijacked HBO.

For that situation, shotguns will get you killed, pistols will get you killed unless the soldier also has a shield, and if he has a shield you want that other hand to be holding grenades, not a pistol. Sniper rifles can pick off targets off opportunity, those that break cover, rifles can take pot shots but will likely only prolong getting you killed.

The two weapons you really want for that damn room, the only two that are actually worth having, are rocket launchers to clear cover and murder aliens, or for a less costly approach on the end mission screen, some method of controlling that battlefield so that all the other weapons become viable. That's where LMGs are supposed to come in. As it stands though, taking a couple of plasmacasters into that environment will slowly slowly eliminate cover and aliens, all the while the rest of the squad is trying to avoid getting murdered. The changes I listed were all based from that scenario:

More damage would destroy the plethora of cover and the much decreased instance of shots hitting an enemy would count for more,

Lower firing cost would allow for more shots per turn, to thin out the number of enemies or suppress a wider area,

Higher ammo count, lower reload cost etc same as above,

Higher accuracy, makes all the cover worth less.

Though I did say that's all just altering the dynamics of weapon to try and give it a different identity.

God forbid you end up like I did once with ten Androns charging me out of one of two exits I had covered. Three shots meant the 'caster on that flank could take down two enemies before he had to reload, given the shot taken on the turn before they charged. Even had he survived that turn (two shots a turn) he would have been screwed the next one. Admittedly suppression doesn't matter in that case but I get similar difficulties with Sebelians never getting suppressed and obliterating me from range with those damn heavy plasmas. Currently there is no way to control the battlefield at higher tiers, and if we're just going to accept that loss of a tactical option and no longer look for suppression then the plasmacaster is not good enough at being its own weapon.

Edit: It comes to mind that on my first Terror mission I ended up in a similar situation; around ten enemies all grouped together and behind cover. Still had ballistics at that point aside from precision lasers, and I'd neglected to take a lawnchair but the MG Hunter did a brilliant job of suppressing the whole group until it ran out of ammo and became useless. At which point I got slaughtered. But it's still an example of temporarily successful crowd control.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Elydo

[GizmoGomez]

I've got a question:

Why, NOW, do all the laser/plasma weapons use the same batteries? Originally they all used the same batteries because the player had to manufacture them, and manufacturing 10 sniper batteries, 30 rifle batteries, 5 LMG batteries, etc would be a huge headache so it just became 45 batteries total. Instead of doing this debate about whether or not batteries have similar amounts of efficiency, the art can just be changed and batteries diversified (possibly keeping a few cross-compatibilities: shotgun/rifle/sniper seem like they should use the same batteries at similar efficiency).

That way we have the realists (Ishantil) satisfied by different levels of power coming out of different batteries altogether, and the gameplay purists (Gorlom) satisfied by the game remaining balanced in gameplay terms.

EDIT: Possibly also make LMG batteries larger and/or heavier, and pistol batteries lighter (can't make them smaller, unless someone figures out a way to make clips fit 2/space)

That's not a bad idea. It'd make what you choose to bring, ammo wise, actually matter late game.

[Josip Broz Tito]

You would still absolutely break plasmacasters. At that point they would also become the king of close-ranged weaponry.

How many LMG's did you bring into that base? 4-5 is the ideal for a base attack as it allows for center room clearance at a faster pace (thus preventing gangs of aliens from massing up and attacking).

If you brought less than that= look at what you're trying to do, it's only reasonable to need a sizeable chunk of your squad dedicated to that central room. If it took less LMG's to clear the center room (with 15+ aliens), the game would become far to easy.

That said, you cannot balance LMG's just based off of what they do in a base. Terror sites, base defense, and crashed/landed UFO's must be considered too. Changes like accuracy reduction for the sake of less TU's to fire would make them sub-par for open-area missions, and the go-to over shotguns for close quarters.

[Elydo]

I've already said that that things such as changing the accuracy, ap to fire or damage aren't the best choice, but that doing so would change the weapon from what it is now to something with a different focus. As currently I don't think the 'caster has a focus, it was a way of solving THAT problem. It was a thought exercise.

I'd argue that they're already the king of close range, but regardless of how good they are at dealing damage, that's still not what they're primarily supposed to do. And if we want to make them have that focus, then they're still not properly balanced for it. Give them a single shot ability, then you end up with the same situation as the original game where every soldier had a heavy plasma because there was no point taking anything else. Which seems to be your approach already.

My preferred solution would be lowering to ap needed to reload it, possibly also with a small increase to the cell ammo. Give it 20 shots rather than 15 for example, four rounds of firing rather than 3. But I haven't done the maths to determine if that would be overpowered, that's the point of this thread. And regarding ufo assaults, terror missions and base defence, each weapon has it's place in the combat that occurs. There is a reason and benefit to deciding to take any of the available selection.

There is supposed to be a primary weapon choice for each situation, otherwise why bother with the weapon? It's not just for flavourful variety. If you decide to tool up an entire squad with a single loadout you should suffer unnecessary difficulty because of your choice when you run into situations the weapon is not suited for, with the possible exception of rifles as that's their point. In that case you'd just not be as suited for any situation as you would be with the more specialised option. Currently plasmacasters are better than most other weapons in a general sense, until they run out of ammo and become useless for a turn, not specialised in any way to give them a distinct role on the battlefield and thus feel most like a go-to option that actually isn't quite good enough. If you want them to be the superweapon of the tier, then yeah, they need to be more broken because they're not good enough to replace every other weapon yet. If you want to tool out the entire squad with only LMGs and not suffer for overspecialisation then LMGs need to be even more overwhelming in every aspect, with the possible exception of long range accuracy, but they should manage that through sheer rounds downrange anyway. Otherwise they need to be given an identity so you want some in your squad to do what they do BEST, but other weapons alongside them to take advantage of their strengths and cover their lacks.

Currently they are not fit for purpose because we don't even know what that purpose should be. Personally I still think it should be to cause suppression, with the high potential damage a secondary benefit.

Maybe really up their weight. Make it impose an ap penalty that would make it even less possible to fire twice in a turn. The Predator armour is supposed to mitigate that anyway, so then they'd become the best choice for your walking tanks, with the downside provided by the armour rather than the gun. Or increase the penalty for moving and firing to make it much less of an assault option. Until Pred armour, again.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Elydo

[NoirWolf]

A flamethrower would solve so many issues in this debate... in-game I mean ( by what I understand one side says LMGs aren't good in close quarters while the other says they're good as is, the simple solution is to have a flamethrower type weapon or grenade launcher or something designed to either aid in room clearing or clear the room with some drawbacks like say a can of highly flammable liquids stuck to your back or such).

[Elydo]

My point isn't so much that 'casters aren't good, they really are. But they're not good 'enough' at being murdermachines, and they're not good at anything else.

The point of the ballistic LMG is crowd control, it is the best weapon for suppressing aliens and can do it in an area at range, regardless of how nicely it can also chew them up if it happens to actually hit. Higher rank aliens become much harder to suppress and the higher machine guns become ineffective at inflicting it, making them only useful for doing damage, and I don't think they're balanced properly for either role, obviously for suppression they currently don't, and for damage they certainly inflict it but have the lowest ammunition count of any weapon (leaving the rocket launcher aside as subject to entirely different considerations and comparing the guns with each other), no fire mode other than five round burst regardless of target and outside of very close range are inefficient due to almost never hitting with every shot and thus never inflicting their full damage profile. Plus they don't synergise with any other weapon.

I'd love a grenade launcher in this game, but it would be so unbalanced. Can you imagine a squad armed with M32s on the field? Heh heh heh heh heh

Edited September 21, 2013 by Elydo