Energy weapons operate off of powerpacks

[AmoryBlaine]

We change up energy based weapons to collectively use insert-able recharge packs, rather than rely on wall mounted chargers. We add a special backpack powered heavy energy rifle for antags.

Here's a WIP for a laser rifle powerpack.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The only nerf lasers have is needing a wall charger.  They are better than ballistics in every way.

[AmoryBlaine]

5 minutes ago, Marlon Phoenix said:

The only nerf lasers have is needing a wall charger.  They are better than ballistics in every way.

I don't care that that's the only nerf they have, it's an awful means of 'balancing' guns.

[AmoryBlaine]

What even is the intent of 'balancing' energy weapons and ballistic weapons? Is the fear that ballistics will fall out of favour? That people will only use energy weapons?

[MattAtlas]

Ideally you want the two kinds of weapons to be somewhat different and not carbon copies. Lasers excel at things that ballistics don't excel at, and I think that's the best way to keep it.

We don't want the two to be too similiar because of that.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

If laser weapons are just reskinned ballistics then remove ballistics because theyre incredibly redundant and are less effective than laser weapons. Lasers can go through glass which is a massive benefit in combat in lots of instances. Lasers burn damage also puts you into paincrit faster than ballistics in my personal view. Ballistics only benefit over this new genre of lasers is that shrapnel slowly kills its victim if they sont have access to surgery.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

1 hour ago, AmoryBlaine said:

What even is the intent of 'balancing' energy weapons and ballistic weapons

This is a videogame. And youre adding a power up.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Marlon Phoenix

[Naelynn]

2 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Ideally you want the two kinds of weapons to be somewhat different and not carbon copies

This.

Ballistics pros & cons in general: 
 - Must be reloaded [Good at multi-engagement fights where you can reload between fighting]
 - Shrapnel is lethal as fuck. (Either this or broken bones can damage organs)
 - Can break bones, which are lethal as fuck.  (Either this or shrapnel can damage organs)
 - Versatile effects (Flash bullets, rubber bullets, HE bullets... options!)
 - Damaged reduced by almost everything

Lasers pros & cons in general
 - Good at single-engagement fights ( Limited ammo pile, but generally larger effective mags due to lack of burst fire on large weapons)
 - Infections
 - Burns organs
 - Goes through glass
 - Damage reduction is rare (Except skrell voidsuit which randomly has more than combat rigs)
 - Either stun or lethal, no versatility.
- Stun is also lethal (Heart attacks)

[AmoryBlaine]

4 hours ago, Naelynn said:

This.

Ballistics pros & cons in general: 
 - Must be reloaded [Good at multi-engagement fights where you can reload between fighting]
 - Shrapnel is lethal as fuck. (Either this or broken bones can damage organs)
 - Can break bones, which are lethal as fuck.  (Either this or shrapnel can damage organs)
 - Versatile effects (Flash bullets, rubber bullets, HE bullets... options!)
 - Damaged reduced by almost everything

Lasers pros & cons in general
 - Good at single-engagement fights ( Limited ammo pile, but generally larger effective mags due to lack of burst fire on large weapons)
 - Infections
 - Burns organs
 - Goes through glass
 - Damage reduction is rare (Except skrell voidsuit which randomly has more than combat rigs)
 - Either stun or lethal, no versatility.
- Stun is also lethal (Heart attacks)

So we're in agreement that they can live on beside each other, with the removal of a single difference between the two. Hardly carbon copies.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

No this is a big difference  -1

[Brutishcrab51]

On 14/12/2019 at 21:46, Marlon Phoenix said:

No this is a big difference  -1

There's been a push by some members of the community and development team to, in-general, remove a lot of the ballistics that are in-code. Personally, I'm okay with this, so long as energy weapons receive appropriate changes to accommodate. Energy packs are cool, but that's on the assumption we turn them from hitscan into projectiles, ay-la Elyran plasma rifles and TCFL bolt-slingers.

Would you be willing to concede that if ballistic weapons were reduced in-common-use, and if energy weapons stopped (largely) being hitscan, that energy projectile-based weapons with rechargeable power cells could be viable?

 

Addition: We could also take this opportunity to raise the lethality of ballistic weapons if they were made less-common. A solid metal slug ripping through your body may be marginally more (IMMEDIATELY) lethal than an energy bolt which scars your left lung and causes you to choke out coughing in five minutes from an infection. Ballistics feel like pea-shooters, but that's largely due to how common they are and the need for balance due to it.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Brutishcrab51

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

What you suggested seems outside the scope of the OP

[Brutishcrab51]

Well, that's because I feel like I'm hitting at the core of the issue. Power cells originate from the discussion wherein ballistics are going to be removed. This is due to the recent PRs seen by developers such as Ladyfowl. While it is not strictly related to the OP, it is onboard with the larger subject that the OP is drawing from.

[Scheveningen]

Hitscan weapons are not getting powerpacks. Fuck that -1

[Carver]

I will never agree with this suggestion if it leads to ballistics being reduced or removed. On the basis of retaining ballistics and everything good they bring, -1.