Sweet Spot for Beams

[Willbonney]

Brought this over from another Topic that's been in discussion this last couple of weeks, and after in game convo's with a few folks in general, was suggested I repost it here.

 

"As for the closer you are the more powerful the beam hit, that makes sense. If there needs to be some tweaking in the amount of damage the actual weapons do, I'm sure that will be looked at to keep things balanced. I understand the lore is "in the vaccum of space" however if you understand the physics implications of beams and lasers, the energy spreads out over distance and so on impact has less of an intensity. Thus why Val Kilmer's super laser from Real Genius doesn't exist yet, where you get a huge hole based on the output size of the beam. Sure, we have high intensity lasers, but their efficiency across distance is similar to what is being discussed. It has to do with the focusing of the energy so that you are pointing all the particles to as small a point as possible. So beyond that point, you lose the focus. And focusing the energy is key. But on that note, would also mean being too close would be just as bad, but that would be a terrible thing to do within the scope of the game.

 

Could be an idea though, put a 100m "sweet" spot that if you remain within that range, you get 2x damage or something. Ranges up to it's half max 100%, and then beyond would drop so that max range would be 50%.

 

An idea maybe, I kind of like the idea of a "sweet" spot where the focus is ideal for the beam"

 

 

 

In a nutshell, have a specific distance for beams to allow greater damage in that narrow range, the beam's "optimal" sort of.  It couldn't be a huge range, I'd say no more than 100m's base.  This then could allow for other devices or buffs, to give a true enhancement to a "beam's focus," and allow to increase that range of increased damage.  The damage bonus I had though would be a 50 or 100% bonus, something that makes it worth it for that Beam user to fight at that specific range.  It is how current Laser Beams work today, the ones that actually cut diamonds or metal.

 

And to  clarify, no I'm not talking in any way shape or form a nerf.  I am speaking of an enhancement, so that you would do more damage at the Beam's "most optimal."

 

Opinions?

[Taluna6]

the sweet spot u are asking is the 50% of max range =100% dmg.. as far as a Missile user understands that..

[Mattsacre]

That purple text hurts me eye holes! :wacko:   :)

[whiskeybrain]

I agree there needs to be some tweaking done with the damage of beams and their falloff/optimal range. I have noticed a slight decrease in damage even within the optimal (under 50% max range), but I am not here to comment on that. I kind of agree with OP idea on beam optimal, but I think for a game we shouldn't bring too much current technology and Physics into it, since after all this is set in the distant future. I think having that "most optimal" range where you do a slight increase in damage at the beam's "most optimal" could be a good idea, but don't think the damage should decrease from "most optimal" to 0.0k.

 

There are two buffs that should be looked into though. Example is the AWCS and Intolerance:

 

Those currently do not stack according to what I've been told in game by a few people, and I believe was verified with a GM. Since we now have optimal range and falloff range for beams, I think "beam focus" should be a buff to increase the optimal range of the beam. So say, a device like AWCS could add 20% to optimal range or something like that, thereby increasing the base distance that the beam will do 100% damage (haven't ran numbers, just using the general idea).

 

I don't want to make this too long so I'll cut it off here and see what people have to say.

[PirateLad]

The optimal range is where you will get 100% of the beam's energy focused and therefore do 100% of the total possible damage.  This is the best you can ever do.  In order to get 200% damage (the 2x damage) you would have to be creating energy out of nothing, a universally accepted impossibility (law of conservation of energy).  In a closed system you cannot create or destroy energy.  While you can convert it from one form to another (e.g. heat, light), the total amount of energy must remain constant.

 

So, if in our system (comprised of the player, the mob, and the intervening space between and around them) 100% of the available energy is coming from the beam, how can you ever get 200% damage?  The most you will ever get is 100% of the energy going to the damage.  Nothing else is adding energy to be able to contribute to the damage.

 

Now there is such a thing as a critical hit which can add more damage.  But there should be no way that we get a critical hit every time we fire at something.  That's just plain wrong.  A critical hit should have a very low chance of occurring.

 

However, with skills or devices there may be a way of coaxing additional energy (and therefore more damage) out of the beam.  Or getting a slightly increased optimal range, etc.

[Beerrun]

The optimal range is where you will get 100% of the beam's energy focused and therefore do 100% of the total possible damage.  This is the best you can ever do.  In order to get 200% damage (the 2x damage) you would have to be creating energy out of nothing, a universally accepted impossibility (law of conservation of energy).  In a closed system you cannot create or destroy energy.  While you can convert it from one form to another (e.g. heat, light), the total amount of energy must remain constant.

 

So, if in our system (comprised of the player, the mob, and the intervening space between and around them) 100% of the available energy is coming from the beam, how can you ever get 200% damage?  The most you will ever get is 100% of the energy going to the damage.  Nothing else is adding energy to be able to contribute to the damage.

 

Now there is such a thing as a critical hit which can add more damage.  But there should be no way that we get a critical hit every time we fire at something.  That's just plain wrong.  A critical hit should have a very low chance of occurring.

 

However, with skills or devices there may be a way of coaxing additional energy (and therefore more damage) out of the beam.  Or getting a slightly increased optimal range, etc.

The mob being weakened to that type of energy. Or the mob being hit in an area that causes a critical hit, such as a soft spot in a carapace. Critical Targeting is exactly that, targeting those critical areas to increase the chance you hit one of them and cause catastrophic damage.

[Willbonney]

The optimal range is where you will get 100% of the beam's energy focused and therefore do 100% of the total possible damage.  This is the best you can ever do.  In order to get 200% damage (the 2x damage) you would have to be creating energy out of nothing, a universally accepted impossibility (law of conservation of energy).  In a closed system you cannot create or destroy energy.  While you can convert it from one form to another (e.g. heat, light), the total amount of energy must remain constant.

 

So, if in our system (comprised of the player, the mob, and the intervening space between and around them) 100% of the available energy is coming from the beam, how can you ever get 200% damage?  The most you will ever get is 100% of the energy going to the damage.  Nothing else is adding energy to be able to contribute to the damage.

 

Now there is such a thing as a critical hit which can add more damage.  But there should be no way that we get a critical hit every time we fire at something.  That's just plain wrong.  A critical hit should have a very low chance of occurring.

 

However, with skills or devices there may be a way of coaxing additional energy (and therefore more damage) out of the beam.  Or getting a slightly increased optimal range, etc.

This is not specifically true.  Many beams are used in more than one "focus type."  A precise focus, wehre the energy is quite literally pinpointed into the smallest area as possible.  This increases the damage capability of the beam quite a lot, however changes in distance would make it ineffective.  The other focus is a more general one, in which the beam is focused, but not nearly to the same degree.

[Willbonney]

I agree there needs to be some tweaking done with the damage of beams and their falloff/optimal range. I have noticed a slight decrease in damage even within the optimal (under 50% max range), but I am not here to comment on that. I kind of agree with OP idea on beam optimal, but I think for a game we shouldn't bring too much current technology and Physics into it, since after all this is set in the distant future. I think having that "most optimal" range where you do a slight increase in damage at the beam's "most optimal" could be a good idea, but don't think the damage should decrease from "most optimal" to 0.0k.

 

There are two buffs that should be looked into though. Example is the AWCS and Intolerance:

 

Those currently do not stack according to what I've been told in game by a few people, and I believe was verified with a GM. Since we now have optimal range and falloff range for beams, I think "beam focus" should be a buff to increase the optimal range of the beam. So say, a device like AWCS could add 20% to optimal range or something like that, thereby increasing the base distance that the beam will do 100% damage (haven't ran numbers, just using the general idea).

 

I don't want to make this too long so I'll cut it off here and see what people have to say.

 

 

I had a similar thought behind existing devices, the ability for them to increase the optimal range from the 50% marker, say up to a max of 75% or something.

This idea however isn't that one, but I do find merit in it.

 

My idea is to give Beam users a purpose behind fighting at a certain range, not 0.0 km (because that just doesn't make any sense to me at all), and not too far away, to enhance their damage capabilities.

[PirateLad]

This is not specifically true.  Many beams are used in more than one "focus type."  A precise focus, wehre the energy is quite literally pinpointed into the smallest area as possible.  This increases the damage capability of the beam quite a lot, however changes in distance would make it ineffective.  The other focus is a more general one, in which the beam is focused, but not nearly to the same degree.

There are many different types of "beams" that could be used as weapons.  A "beam" could be anything such as a laser, maser, plasma, particle beam, etc.  If I'm not mistaken, EnB considered the beam weapon to be a laser type of weapon (although it had other types as well, such as plasma, EMP, perhaps others, but these were considered damage types).  This is used as the basis for what follows.

 

Focusing the beam can cause more damage because the same energy is localized into a smaller area.  Reducing the area the beam hits by half causes the affected area to take four times the energy.  Using many beams and trying to focus them has its own set of issues to overcome (although not unrealistic for a futuristic space game).  But the sum total of energy for all the beams still adds up to 100% of the total available energy.

 

There are other ways to concentrate the energy, such as using a pulse beam instead of a steady beam.  I suspect the beams used in EnB are more along the lines of a pulse beam.  It just makes more sense.  You build up the energy in the excitation chamber, and when it reaches a certain point momentarily open the aperture to release the energy.  This would equate to the recharge time used by the game.  A lot less power is needed for a pulse beam to produce the same amount of energy that a steady (always on) beam has.  A steady beam has the aperture open which produces a constant loss of energy (the beam).  A pulse beam keeps the aperture closed until fired, allowing the energy inside to build itself up.  Hence, more energy in a pulse beam for the same amount of power.  Yes, there is a limit to how much energy will build up to (similar to the charge rate of a capacitor).

 

Another way to increase the energy is to increase the frequency of the energy beam.  Higher frequencies contain more energy than lower frequencies.  A red light laser (lower frequency) has less energy than a yellow light laser (higher frequency) does.

 

I think there's a real difference in what you and I think of a beam weapon to be.  It seems that you are thinking of it as many small beams concentrated at a focal point onto a single spot (the focal point would have to have a variable focus from near 0 to the optimal range).  Whereas when I think of a beam weapon I think of it more as a pulse beam with it throwing out a large (diameter) slug of energy.  Think more like what the vipers had in the original Battlestar Galactica series from 1978-79.  Think of the energy pulse being the size (diameter) of the slug a WWII battleship may have shot (large) vs a pistol or rifle (small).  Think more of a large diameter single slug, as opposed to a bunch of BB's.

 

The optimal range represents the range that the energy remains cohesive.  Past the optimal point the energy begins to dissipate.  As the beam dissipates, its energy is dispersed.  Since the beam contains 100% of the energy, as the beam diameter gets bigger the amount of energy per square meter is reduced.  In game terms, the maximum range represents the range where the beam diameter has dissipated to the point where the energy/area is only one-half of the orignal (cohesive) beam.

 

It doesn't matter what type of "technology" is used for the beam weapons, whether it is many beams focused into a small area or a pulse beam.  The amount of damage it does is based on 100% of the energy being contained within the beam.  Maximum damage is based on the beam hitting within the optimal range, so the energy/area is 100%.  If you have many beams focused into a small area, the sum of the energy for all the beams is still 100% of the total energy the weapon produces.  No more.  If you have a pulse beam, the energy in the pulse is 100% of the total energy the weapon produces.  No more.  When the beam hits within the optimal range, the energy/area will be 100%.  At maximum range the energy/area is 50%.  How the beam gets there (delivery mechanism) is irrelevant.  The only energy being provided to our closed system comes from the beam weapon, and that represents 100% of the total available energy.

[Willbonney]

No, you seem to be restating something I have said in a different way in the past.  My idea of the "optimal range" would be a range somewhere in the middle of the beam's so called 100% damage.  Having max damage be at a range of 0-50%, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  Because I do not care for nerfs at all, I'm fine with damage as is, having it go from a so called "max damage" range of 0-50%, but this idea would incorporate the "focus point" of the beam, and thus increase it's damage.

 

I'm trying to work within the scope of what exists in the game, to make it more similar to reality, without taking away anything either.

 

I understand in the real world, a laser/beam loses it's damage capability at about the same rate if you are closer than it's focus point, as if you move further away.  For the game however, I think reducing damage for being too close is a bad idea.  Instead, a "sweet spot" of 100m near the 50% range of the beam, in which it would do more damage than it's stated.

 

Could even call it the "focus" of the beam, as there is already a "beam focus" buff in the game, as well as equipment like "focused" whatever.  In these cases, could increase the range of a beam's focus by up to 50% (and thus 150m of focus).

 

 

Edited to add:  and no, I do not want to incoorporate any sort of frequency modulation on the beams.  That brings in a whole new bag of physics theories that are mostly unproven, heh.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Willbonney

[Willbonney]

As for "slug" type beams, they just don't exist.  That slug in battlestar, or the one from Real Genius with Val Kilmer, just isn't the way I would think a beam weapon would work.  Those types of lasers, due to the power sources heating exponentially the longer you hold the beam, and thus requiring more energy to sustain the same power, isn't the way I would think a weaponized laser would be.

 

And it's all a matter of the end result, the damage of the beam.  So yes, even with using the same beam and energy, striking a target at it's focus point would increase the damage the beam would cause.  I'm not talking of increasing the "energy,"  just the damage it causes within a certain small window of it's optimal range.

[Willbonney]

Think of it like a sword.  It has mass, and the energy of your swinging is the delivery method.  The sword is sharpened, but only to a certain point.  If you were to sharpen it too much, yes it would cut, but would not be able to maintain it's ability to cut for very long, as in battle it would be heavily grooved even if only striking bone.  So you would sharpen it to an extent, but not so much to lose it's effectiveness.

 

Similar here.  There would be a certain point, with the same energy, that it would cause more damage.  Too close, and you still do damage, but not as much ( I DO NOT want to change the damage at the 0-50% range, I think it's fine).  Too far away, you're still doing damage, but again not as much.  In the scope of recent changes, further away is even worse, as the thinking is too many energy particles are completely missing the target.  Scientifically, this isn't too far from the truth, as the energy drop off does seem to drop off more rapidly being further away from the focal point, rather than closer together.  The particles are so small, even though there is some collision, the energy drop off is worse when the particles get more spread out, than too close together.