Excellent suggestions for Standoff team

[MavS]

...Who remembers having to fly at a speed of at least 250 to navigate an asteroid belt or mine field?...

I... though I usually tried to get through with 300-350 (especially in battles to avoid being a sitting duck)

I admit now, I miscalculated my 'safe' cruising speed in WC1 and can confirm that I actually consider 400 kps my prefered speed during heavy enemy resistence. I use my afterburners in WC1 and WC2 primarily to shake missile locks and perform the afterburner slide (which I note as the move that keeps me alive in the hardest missions - one in particular from SM1, an insane "rescue" mission with me and Spirit getting ambushed by the Gwenhyvar with me in a Raptor against 4 Rapiers as well as 4 waves of Kilrathi fighters).

With WC1, I think the Raptor is better than a Rapier - it has a perfect speed of 400 and handles very smoothly and isn't as touchy to fly as the Rapier - however, it lacks the firepower of the Rapier, calling for accurate shots because gun recharge rates are very slow.

More or less the same here... and don't forget to mention these 4 waves were mostly Gratha and Jalthi (to be exact 4 Gratha, 4 Jalthi, 4 Krant and again 4 Gratha - I wrote it down back then...; and as far as my notes go there were 5 Rapiers, not 4) ... still I somewhat liked that mission for being challenging

No, we can't, because the reason we're given different lengths for both the WC1 Rapier and the WC2 Rapier is that they're different designs.

I strongly dislike the whole Rapier-Comparison-Theory... the reason why people usually want to dismiss the ship sizes given in the WC1 blueprints is that they (correctly) feel the ships look smaller than the given measures. However, the ships in WC2 also look smaller than their given measures. Moreover, the WC2 Rapier and the WC1 Rapier are clearly different designs, therefore they don't need to be the same length. Why, then, would you want to "fix" a ship's length by making it the same as another ship's, if that second ship doesn't exactly look it's length either?

Well, right, but still one could assume that they were, if not exactly, at least of somewhat similar length...

But to come to something else, the Hornet did have 1400 (or was it 1350 ?) kps afterburner speed in WC1... what was the reason to set it to 1280? Maybe power-drain from the replacement of Lasers with neutrons? Or just to make it look older? (just being curious here...)
Because when someone said they were given Neutrons to increase their chances in some mission, also giving them their original AB-speed would have increased those chances even more, wouldn't it?

And for things I noticed on other ships - Krant had Lasers, it now having Mass Drivers could be seen as a continuation of the program that gave Dralthi II's Mass Drivers; about the Hhriss I'm not sure what it has in Standoff, but it seemed to have more then the 2 Mass Drivers and 2 Neutrons that I remember as its original specs; and about the Wraith not having Reapers (also see below)... were the game's weapon slots too few for some reason?

About weapon ranges... What I recall would be Lasers 4800, Mass Drivers 3000, Neutrons 2500, Particle 5000 and Turrets also about 5000 (yes, even though they look like Neutrons...)
So I'm wondering why Mass Drivers seem to be the most long-ranged gun in Standoff... (I'll need to look up the Standoff-values with WCPEdit sometime)
[and in Academy the Reapers - that the Wraith had where you gave it Neutrons - had roughly 6000 and the Photons of the Jrathek had about 5400, while its Plasmas had somewhere around 3000 to 3500 (or even 2500 to 4000, never payed that much attention to them) ; just to complete the listing]

Concerning bullet speeds, I'd revise my prior comment and say that Mass Drivers and Particles seem accurate, while Lasers seem to be a bit too fast and Neutrons a bit too slow, and about the speed of the turret-guns I have not much impressions right now...


Still I see this thread as a theoretical debate, recalling my above statement... Or is it planned to make balancing changes?

 

[Toast]

I'm finding the mass drivers trickier to use than the other guns, though I have no qualms about their effectiveness. The mass driver bullets travel noticeably slower than all the other gun bolts, so while it's easy to paste a target with a complete full-guns salvo in a Rapier or Gladius, I often only hit with half of a full guns salvo with a Sabre. I have to get in close or be in a head-on pass to get the whole thing to hit.

I've also often fired a mass driver burst at a Gothri while flying a Stiletto, and watched the Gothri fly away from the mass driver stream... and then back into it. The bullets fly slowly enough that there's enough time for the target to fly away and then fly back into the burst.

So I'm guessing that, although the mass drivers probably do have a max. range of about 3000m, the bullets persist longer than the other bolts simply because they have to stay in the the "air" longer for them to reach their maximum range. In a head-on pass, a lot of mass driver bullets seem to hit because the enemy is closing at afterburner speed and the bullets persist long enough to reach, whereas lasers and particles often hit their max range and burn out quickly, before the target manages to afterburn in and close the range. I haven't done the mental math, but I think it's possible that this could be what's happening.

When strafing Kamekh's and turrents, the closest things we have to stationary targets, the mass drivers do seem to have less range than the particle cannons. So I think the weapon ranges are more or less correct. Mass drivers are great guns - low power usage and high rate of fire - but they don't really seem to play so well with other weapons in the mix. This is not a complaint - I think that's always the way it's been.

 

[Quarto]

But to come to something else, the Hornet did have 1400 (or was it 1350 ?) kps afterburner speed in WC1... what was the reason to set it to 1280? Maybe power-drain from the replacement of Lasers with neutrons? Or just to make it look older? (just being curious here...)

Faulty memory on your part . The Hornet's WC1 AB speed was 1240.

And for things I noticed on other ships - Krant had Lasers, it now having Mass Drivers could be seen as a continuation of the program that gave Dralthi II's Mass Drivers;

The Dralthi II is what inspired that change, IIRC. I don't know how justified it ultimately was, given the carnage the Drakhri deals out with its three lasers, but I still like the result.

about the Hhriss I'm not sure what it has in Standoff, but it seemed to have more then the 2 Mass Drivers and 2 Neutrons that I remember as its original specs;

No, the Hhriss has exactly the same guns it always did.

and about the Wraith not having Reapers (also see below)... were the game's weapon slots too few for some reason?

I don't remember. Possibly it could have been that (Standoff in theory only has four guns, but in practice each of those guns exists in multiple variants, to allow for different convergence angles on different ships). However, it could also have been laziness, IIRC - new guns for just one ship? Besides, the Wraith doesn't exactly suffer much from the loss of its super weapons.

As for our gun values - as I mentioned in the other thread, all our gun values are straight from WC2 (the game, not the manual... actually, I don't remember if the WC2 manual even had any such data).

Still I see this thread as a theoretical debate, recalling my above statement... Or is it planned to make balancing changes?

Definitely no changes - three episodes into the game, we're really not interested in balance changes.

 

[Dundradal]

I don't remember. Possibly it could have been that (Standoff in theory only has four guns, but in practice each of those guns exists in multiple variants, to allow for different convergence angles on different ships). However, it could also have been laziness, IIRC - new guns for just one ship? Besides, the Wraith doesn't exactly suffer much from the loss of its super weapons.

Only reason I could see it being worth it is because the Reaper guns have such an impressive claim on them (shot down more craft than all other guns) yet only appears on 2 fighters in two games (Wraith/Armada, Excal mk1/WC3).

The Wraith doesn't suffer but the reaper gun could use some love.

 

[iamtheman83]

Going back to the cruising speed to afterburner speed differential issues I raised in previous posts, I noticed something after prolonged flying in the simulator.

I now confidently play the game on the 'Nightmare' difficulty after being informed wingmen AI is increased, therefore increasing their longevity (it really isn't something to be wary of because in many ways, I think the game to be easier - Nightmare mode on Prophecy and Secret Ops never really posed a challenge for me anyway, WC4 on the other hand - Whoa!).

Anyway, this presents another problem - with the sparse amount of decoys available to coincide with the game canon, evading missiles the skilled pilot's way can be a son-of-a-bitch. Because of the speed differential, evading missiles ala WC1 and WC2 by way of slamming on afterburners and doing some fancy loops and rolls is nearly impossible when tailed by am IMREC or IFF - because Nightmare mode ups the ante by decreasing the spoof percentage (probability countermeasures will distract a missile). And ships without afterburners - Well!

Chaff pods were introduced in WC2 particularly for the Broadsword's absence of afterburners, so with fighters, shaking missile locks could be done by outrunning them. Please Standoff team, fix the speed differential to be more like the older games or increase the spoof percentage on higher difficulty levels!

 

[Mincemeat]

Definitely no changes - three episodes into the game, we're really not interested in balance changes.

And with that in mind, I think it is now safe to close this thread

 

[Quarto]

And with that in mind, I think it is now safe to close this thread

Why would we do that? The WC community spends 90% of its time discussing things that can't be changed.

Chaff pods were introduced in WC2 particularly for the Broadsword's absence of afterburners, so with fighters, shaking missile locks could be done by outrunning them. Please Standoff team, fix the speed differential to be more like the older games or increase the spoof percentage on higher difficulty levels!

No . The missile stats (speed, et cetera) are also taken from the original WC2. Besides, I've never had any trouble shaking off missiles, personally .

 

[iamtheman83]

"No . The missile stats (speed, et cetera) are also taken from the original WC2. Besides, I've never had any trouble shaking off missiles, personally" -- Quarto.

On Nightmare difficulty, it's harder to shake missiles in some instances without using up too much afterburn fuel - which is extremely limited.

If you claim to have little trouble shaking off missiles, would you care to give your evasive strategy?

I usually slam on burners and do some wild loops and weaves (I try not to make the ship loop too sharply because it tends to turn on a dime causing a decrease in velocity). With WC3 to Secret Ops, I found that the rear view camera is helpful - something that is gone in Standoff for some reason...

Another thing I sometimes do is line the missile up in the centre radar just like with a target. If I can keep a visual on it and out manoeuvre it, it will fail to find adequate acceleration to hit me.

 

[Delance]

Why would we do that? The WC community spends 90% of its time discussing things that can't be changed.

That's arguably what web forums are for.

 

[RATM]

That and calling people fascist nazis to win arguments.

!!!

 

[Mincemeat]

Why would we do that? The WC community spends 90% of its time discussing things that can't be changed.

This just goes to show how new I am around here

 

[Mancubus]

Hi, I'm new here, and actually i never played WC2 and I just started WC1 so I can't start discussing the stats, but i still have some sugestion.

won't it be possible to replace Gladius' bomber loadout with fighter loadout in the sim? I meanwith only two torps it cant do much damage, and it's worthless in gauntlets with only two HS, but with eight missiles it would be fun

oh and one more thing BTW

Only reason I could see it being worth it is because the Reaper guns have such an impressive claim on them (shot down more craft than all other guns) yet only appears on 2 fighters in two games (Wraith/Armada, Excal mk1/WC3).

Actually in Wc3 also Ka'ha'haf has reapers. and some people are not sure if Sorthak purple guns weren't Rreapers too

 

[Eder]

On Nightmare difficulty, it's harder to shake missiles in some instances without using up too much afterburn fuel - which is extremely limited.

Well, the game engine cheats on Nightmare difficulty.

 

[Dundradal]

Actually in Wc3 also Ka'ha'haf has reapers. and some people are not sure if Sorthak purple guns weren't Rreapers too

I was speaking strictly of the confed side, but good note. The Reaper just gets such a mythos with that line about it's kill score.

 

[Ijuin]

Meh, the Reaper hits a little harder and faster than the Ion cannon, but its real advantage is in the lower power consumption, which lets it shoot much longer--if you switch to Reapers-only in the Excalibur you can have continuous fire. An Arrow with Reapers would do as much damage as a Hellcat.

 

[Lt.Death100]

Hi, I'm new here, and actually i never played WC2 and I just started WC1 so I can't start discussing the stats, but i still have some sugestion.

won't it be possible to replace Gladius' bomber loadout with fighter loadout in the sim? I meanwith only two torps it cant do much damage, and it's worthless in gauntlets with only two HS, but with eight missiles it would be fun

The bomber loadout would likely help against the kamekhs (unless I'm wrong and they don't lock on them).

 

[cff]

Vision engine. So no torpedo locks on corvette type vessels.

 

[Quarto]

If you claim to have little trouble shaking off missiles, would you care to give your evasive strategy?

My strategy? It's pretty much unchanged since WC2 . Basically, if you can't run away from something... face it. Charge the missile on full afterburners - it won't have enough time to adjust its course, so it won't hit you head on. Instead, it will overshoot and get way out of position. Even if it doesn't lose lock, it will at least lose most of its short lifetime.

 

[MavS]

Here's a rough gun chart for Standoff. The values are based on WC2's values, with the exception of the refire rate (which did not exist in WC2).

		Damage	Speed	Range	Energy	Refire
Laser Cannon	2.5 cm	1600	3000	14	0.25 sec
Neutron Gun	4 cm	1400	2000	28	0.35 sec
Mass Driver	3 cm	1200	2500	18	0.3 sec	
Particle Gun	5.3 cm	2200	3000	18	0.5 sec

And yeah, the mass driver is very unimpressive with these stats. Don't blame us, though, blame WC2.

Now, that may be the values the game deals with internally, but since the Armada-editor shows me some far too small values (about 2/3 of the ingame) for the afterburner-speed of the ships, I'd rather not rely on such... I'd only take it for things not measurable in another way - the used energy, for example. The feel is more important then the exact canon-values, I'd say... Of course, it's your mod, not mine.
Thanks to ChrisReid I got some old games back to running... didn't test WC2 yet, but I remember gameplay in Academy being nearly the same, and I took a second look at the gunranges, this time judged in comparison to a Dorkathi with nearly 0 relative speed (so yes, it was flying away and I was following it with 30-70 kps). It seems I let myself be fooled by the high velocity of the Wraith and Jrathek (which I didn't use much vs stationary targets), but the rest was nearly correct - my current values for the ranges in WCAcademy are:

Laser 4700 to 4800
Particle 5000 +-100
Mass Driver 3000 +-100
Neutron 2700 +-100
Turret Gun 5000 +-500 (hard to estimate because need to go back to cockpit after hit and turn the ship to get the distance)
Photon 5000 +-200
Plasma 2400 +-50 (easier to estimate this close)
Reaper 4700 +-200 (a real surprise to me - seems I got seriously fooled by head-on-passes with the Wraith's high velocity... :/ )

On side of the reload times I noticed only that the Neutron has a decidedly larger one then the others of the above mentioned guns. And the speeds all seemed fairly similar... at about the level the Mass Drivers have in Standoff. The ships made the impression to be slower, though (or that's just me running DOSBox with too less cycles...).

Yet it might be this is different in WC2 - I'll test it within the next months, but I wouldn't expect much changes...


And - pretty impressive strategy... and what do you do to avoid being nailed by those DF's? They're my biggest problem so far.

Why would we do that? The WC community spends 90% of its time discussing things that can't be changed.

Nice to hear.

Faulty memory on your part . The Hornet's WC1 AB speed was 1240.

Was it? Hmm... now I'd like to have an 5.25"-floppy drive to confirm this...

The Dralthi II is what inspired that change, IIRC. I don't know how justified it ultimately was, given the carnage the Drakhri deals out with its three lasers, but I still like the result.

Yeah, I also like it - especially as that finally is an AI pilot-type that makes good use of its afterburners.

(Standoff in theory only has four guns, but in practice each of those guns exists in multiple variants, to allow for different convergence angles on different ships)

Ugh... that should explain it, then...

Besides, the Wraith doesn't exactly suffer much from the loss of its super weapons.

Right - did I ever say something contrary to this?

(the game, not the manual... actually, I don't remember if the WC2 manual even had any such data).

No, the manual didn't have it - my old values were partly from experience and partly from a solution-book.

Definitely no changes - three episodes into the game, we're really not interested in balance changes.

Good. And understandable...

So I'm guessing that, although the mass drivers probably do have a max. range of about 3000m, the bullets persist longer than the other bolts simply because they have to stay in the the "air" longer for them to reach their maximum range. In a head-on pass, a lot of mass driver bullets seem to hit because the enemy is closing at afterburner speed and the bullets persist long enough to reach, whereas lasers and particles often hit their max range and burn out quickly, before the target manages to afterburn in and close the range. I haven't done the mental math, but I think it's possible that this could be what's happening.

Thanks - that sounds like it's exactly what happens. And thanks for stating the part with Kamekh and "stationary target" - that was what got me the idea of measuring vs a Dorkathi.

 

[Zelvik]

Just to be blunt and edgy id add my oppinion about Standoff.

Dont change a bit, its realy well done the way it works now!

Some missions gave me a bit of challenge especially in EP3 but in the end I was able to easily acchieve all the mission goals. So its not too hard but a real good challenge not often seen in todays games. Keep on the tradition of missions you have to fly 10 times to master them to the point you "win" them.

Thanks for the challenge!