[Discussion] The Mechanics of Egosoft's Implementation of Beam Weapons

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Hi peeps,

Due to a discussion in the CMOD thread having wider implications I decided to create a thread specifically for this discussion.

I feel that I must highlight that the points of discussion are not directly relating to any given mod nor relating to the specific implemented balance of the beam weapons in any given mod.

Going back to the implications of how paul believes beams to work (see this and surrounding posts for details). Let us say you want to make a beam less effective against fighters, you can increase the beam duration but if what paul says is correct then it will also reduce the overall damage per second possibly making them less effective against capitals overall.

The overall damage remains the same no matter the duration. Its just spread out over the entire duration of the beam.

As far as I am aware, beam weapons ignore the rate of fire parameter from a bullet instance perspective. For example AWRM vanilla balanced Adv. G-KE is a 0.6s bullet based beam weapon with 21rpm rate of fire, It does not fire a 0.6s beam then wait ~2.2s before firing again (at least under player control). Thus longer bullet life with slower bullets is going to effectively reduce the effective rate of damage if what paul is saying is correct.

This leads us on to the wider discussion...

1. How does the game engine treat the Laser Rate of Fire and Bullet Life parameters?
2. What impact does this have on effective rate of damage under AI fire control?
3. What impact does this have on effective rate of damage under Player fire control?

[Litcube]

I'll try to keep this short.

I agree with Egosoft's decision to keep the Tri-Beam cannon, Plasma Array Laser Cannon, and the Fusion Beam cannon out of the game.

The player can use the beam weapons far more efficiently than the AI, for reasons already stated by Paul. His solution was to keep them as turret weapons only.

My solution, I've found and implemented, is to replace the models with a new long beam model, something about 10 x the length of the HEPT. Very similar to XTC's ion shard railgun. Take off the beam flag, and increase the speed to 3,000+. The result is a beam like effect in game, the same hit % as a beam weapon, but with the ability to control balance with an equal playing field between AI and player control.

Hope I stayed on topic.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

Well the disussion is not about the balance or presence/absence of beam weapons but rather about the mechanics of how it is implemented.

Although your suggestion does have merit, this discussion is more about unveiling what the actual implemented beam weapon mechanics are.

[paulwheeler]

My solution, I've found and implemented, is to replace the models with a new long beam model, something about 10 x the length of the HEPT. Very similar to XTC's ion shard railgun. Take off the beam flag, and increase the speed to 3,000+. The result is a beam like effect in game, the same hit % as a beam weapon, but with the ability to control balance with an equal playing field between AI and player control.

Hope I stayed on topic.

I'd very much like to test that out. Is it convincing?

What happens if you set range to virtually nothing, speed to almost stationary but the hit box length to the same as the model length? Then when it fires you will get a stationary bullet appear which doesn't move but anything that touches it will take the hit. You might then get something that simulates a proper beam...

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

While this is interesting it is not getting us closer to the answers raised in the OP.

[X2-Eliah]

...

While this is interesting it is not getting us closer to the answers raised in the OP.

If you can't accept other people's speculation that, btw, are on the subject, then define the discussion's rules, please. Your OP leaves a lot open for interpretation. Or, if you don't want discussion, but just answers to only your question, ask ES directly.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

[OT]

...

While this is interesting it is not getting us closer to the answers raised in the OP.

If you can't accept other people's speculation that, btw, are on the subject, then define the discussion's rules, please. Your OP leaves a lot open for interpretation. Or, if you don't want discussion, but just answers to only your question, ask ES directly.

Talk about being confrontational .... In the future I suggest that if you have an isssue with the way I word my posts that you PM me as per nominal forum etiquette dictates.[/OT]

I deliberatly created this thread to divert this specific discussion away from the CMOD thread. It is not a case of accepting other people's speculation about ALTERNATE implementations but rather a discussion about the how the specific hard-coded implementation works.

Egosoft is rarely forthcoming about such matters thus the discussion here is an effort to collate the empirical evidence that leads us towards what is appropriate balancing of the hard-coded beams in mods.

There is a similar discussion with regards to calculating pricing of wares and ships from the T-file pricing parameters.

EDIT: Altered thread title to better reflect the intended discussion.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

For example AWRM vanilla balanced Adv. G-KE is a 0.6s bullet based beam weapon with 21rpm rate of fire, It does not fire a 0.6s beam then wait ~2.2s before firing again (at least under player control). Thus longer bullet life with slower bullets is going to effectively reduce the effective rate of damage if what paul is saying is correct.

This leads us on to the wider discussion...

1. How does the game engine treat the Laser Rate of Fire and Bullet Life parameters?
2. What impact does this have on effective rate of damage under AI fire control?
3. What impact does this have on effective rate of damage under Player fire control?

Ok, I have done some play testing with the vanilla balanced Advanced GKE from AWRM and have noted that when under AI control, the beam weapons appear to be fired in accordance with the Bullet life (beam burst duration) and Rate of Fire parameters. This still leaves the question of what is the effective rate of damage from beams when under player control?

Judging from my experience with the Adv. GKE, I believe that when under player control, the damage is aggregated over the life of the beam. Thus it would appear that to achieve the same balance under both player and AI control then the beam bullet duration should match the rate of fire.

Doing this should turn the question of effectiveness of beam weapons v. targets to a simple rate of damage, rate of energy consumption, and beam range matter.

[TrixX]

So instead of realising that the implementation of Beam Weapons in TC is kinda an after thought that went wrong you are attempting to find out exactly how wrong?

Interesting...

Paulwheeler, Litcube, X2-Eliah lets start a thread on how to simulate beam weapons without the need to use the stock versions

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

So instead of realising that the implementation of Beam Weapons in TC is kinda an after thought that went wrong you are attempting to find out exactly how wrong?

No, not how wrong (that is a negative view and I am not willing to be baited into a pro-con discussion of Egosoft's design/implementation decisions)... I am attempting to find out how it is actually implemented by Egosoft (whether right or wrong from any particular view point is irrelevant)

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Paulwheeler, Litcube, X2-Eliah lets start a thread on how to simulate beam weapons without the need to use the stock versions

Paul is already covering such a discussion in his CMOD thread although LitCube has created a thread specifically for discussing alternate moddable implementation options for "Beam-like" weapons. This thread is for discussing what is already implemented and how it can be balanced effectively.

[TrixX]

You can multi-quote in a single post

You want to determine the mechanics of beam weapons when you have been messing with AWRM for ages and all the parameters up for discussion are in X3 Editor 2. I'm kinda not seeing something here. Most of us editing weapons have tried things like ammo on beams and other iterations (see CMOD4's PALC) to try to get them to work more effectively/accurately/at all.

I wish it weren't so but it seems there is a fundamental issue with beam weapons in the current implementation and nothing I have seen fixes it properly. Though I am working on a few ideas, I can't exactly post them yet as they haven't been fully tested.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

You can multi-quote in a single post

The second post was an afterthought (we could do with more user friendly support for multi-quoting ala TXU).

You want to determine the mechanics of beam weapons when you have been messing with AWRM for ages and all the parameters up for discussion are in X3 Editor 2. I'm kinda not seeing something here. Most of us editing weapons have tried things like ammo on beams and other iterations (see CMOD4's PALC) to try to get them to work more effectively/accurately/at all.

The problem is that the information is spread across the forums and perhaps duplicated in places. This thread will hopefully help to co-ordinate and collate that information in order to reach some hard and fast answers.

I wish it weren't so but it seems there is a fundamental issue with beam weapons in the current implementation and nothing I have seen fixes it properly. Though I am working on a few ideas, I can't exactly post them yet as they haven't been fully tested.

The fundamental issue is not so much with the hard-coded implementation but more with the assumptions people make about how they are implemented. This thread is intended to counter those assumptions and highlight exactly what we have, not what people wish we had.

I could legitimatly argue that beams do work quite effectively as is, the biggest issue is with how they work and how to balance them appropriately. In AWRM I attempt to do so through high energy consumption/low damage efficiency. To attempt to make beam weapons less effective against smaller vessels than larger ones is to my mind defeating the object of what beam weapons are meant to be... insta-hit killing devices.

The obvious attempts to balance beam weapons of making them chargable or ammo dependent do not work. This leaves us with ensuring that the balance of Beam weapons are the same when used by the player and the AI. Which is where my empirical evidence stated earlier seems to play a part.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Judging from my experience with the Adv. GKE, I believe that when under player control, the damage is aggregated over the life of the beam. Thus it would appear that to achieve the same balance under both player and AI control then the beam bullet duration should match the rate of fire.

Doing this should turn the question of effectiveness of beam weapons v. targets to a simple rate of damage, rate of energy consumption, and beam range matter.

Ok, I believe I have confirmed the Player control situation based on play testing with the Asura and rate of energy consumption. Given this, it would seem that in order to guarentee equal balance beam weapon bullet lifes should on the whole be equal to the firing interval.

This may also help with game performance issues. If beam bullet life is longer than the refire rate then you could be getting into bullet over-draw rendering issues when under AI control.