Jump to content


New Outboard Weapon Equipment Request

Outboard Weapons equipment

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

White_Widow18 #1 Posted 08 December 2019 - 10:22 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12600 battles
  • 2,551
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
Idea for a new outboard weapons equipment piece: Extra Hardpoints - More ordnance for a minor increase in reload and an altitude deficit. 

Captain_Underpants53 #2 Posted 08 December 2019 - 10:48 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 25598 battles
  • 3,801
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017
Russian bombers would benefit greatly.
MSgt, USAF, (ret)

legoboy0401 #3 Posted 09 December 2019 - 12:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1880 battles
  • 1,838
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    11-30-2013

View PostStygian_Alchemist, on 08 December 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

Idea for a new outboard weapons equipment piece: Extra Hardpoints - More ordnance for a minor increase in reload and an altitude deficit. 

 

I like this idea. +1.


An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.

 

#Failureisalwaysanoption

 

#Givingupneveris


vcharng #4 Posted 09 December 2019 - 02:44 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3961 battles
  • 889
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 08 December 2019 - 10:48 PM, said:

Russian bombers would benefit greatly.

Which is why I would be against this idea...



wylleEcoyote #5 Posted 09 December 2019 - 10:27 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5953 battles
  • 983
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
THis seems like Reinforced Hardpoints that nerf reload time and altitude instead of speed.

I dont like this idea.

Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is much like my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
Usually I start on the right track and then a make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ... 
And yet it doesn't stop me from speculation.

Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters:   XP-31, Model 81A-1, P-40, P-51A, P-39N-1, XF15C, DH.100 F1,
Fw 56/159, He 51/112, Ar 68, Bf 109 B/E/E-3/F, Me 209 v4/A, Me P.1092, I-17
MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, F11C-2, F4F, P-26 /-35 /-43, XP-44, P-47B,
Ar 65, Fw 190 A-1/A-5/D, I- 5 / 15 / 16(e)(l)

Heavy Fighters: P-38 F/J,  XP-58, Beaufighter,  Ao 192, Bf 110 C-6, Me 410, Do 335 A-1, Me 262, Tu-1, SE 100,

Attack Aircraft: Hs 123, Ha 137, Hs 129 A, Ju 87 G, Me 265, Me 1099 B-2
Bombers: Do 17 Z, He 111 H2, Pe-2, Do 217 M
 


White_Widow18 #6 Posted 09 December 2019 - 01:32 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12600 battles
  • 2,551
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostwylleEcoyote, on 09 December 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

THis seems like Reinforced Hardpoints that nerf reload time and altitude instead of speed.

I dont like this idea.

Why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I came up with this staring at my German bombers and my American Bombers and my MRFs especially. I'd also propose that it's an equipment piece that would only make sense in the lower tiers as opposed to the extra cockpit slot equipment that only shows up at high tiers. Older planes were frequently retrofitted to carry more ordnance, but the more modern a plane is the harder it is to modify it to carry a heavier payload in terms of hardpoints. I probably should have included this part in the initial proposal.. but honestly I didn't figure anyone would respond at all haha! Something like say.. the BV P.215.02 as an example would be almost impossible to modify to carry more ordnance. 

The other tradeoff I'd looked at for more ordnance was lowering the individual damage of each piece of ordnance in exchange for more of it. 

I'm not looking for an imbalance creation either, which is why I didn't propose any numbers.. because I don't know exactly what would be good for that and feel like that is above my personal paygrade =D I just think the base idea of an outboard weapon slot that increases the -amount- of ordnance in a single load for a tradeoff would A.) make historical sense and B.) hopefully shake up the game from everyone (mostly) -just- running strengthened hardpoints.. because that.. is boring.



wylleEcoyote #7 Posted 09 December 2019 - 04:17 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5953 battles
  • 983
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Why? Because we already have a mechanic for this.
getting MOAR kaboom is handled with Reinforced Hard Points by reducing the cool down period for that aforementioned kaboom. Thus more kaboom in the long run.
And balanced by penalizing your speed to get to the places you want to kaboom. 

As opposed to running Aerodynamic Pylons which do the reverse.
You get where you are going faster (if you have external ordnance) but it takes longer for your kaboom to come off cooldown. Which means less kaboom overall. 

Perhaps your suggestion would work better if one could mount 'smaller' kabooms (Ordnance packages from one tier lower for example) and get them reloaded faster due to the practice your "off screen" ground crews have acquired. Or you could mount an Ordnance package from one tier higher with a longer reload. (and conveniently they are already modeled)
The other balancing factor for this is that up/down-teiring your ordnance will effect the soft stats for your plane. Power/Weight ratios and drag values in particular come to mind. 
Which would lead to the noticeable loss/gains in Airspeed and Altitude ratings of the planes that can mount this equipment.

One more thing. How would you model this more payload on a sliding scale that is improving as you upgrade and calibrate the equipment by a few percentage points at a time? 
DO i get a fraction of an extra rocket or bomb? or do i get nothing until i reach a certain level and THEN get one extra rocket or bomb?

Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is much like my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
Usually I start on the right track and then a make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ... 
And yet it doesn't stop me from speculation.

Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters:   XP-31, Model 81A-1, P-40, P-51A, P-39N-1, XF15C, DH.100 F1,
Fw 56/159, He 51/112, Ar 68, Bf 109 B/E/E-3/F, Me 209 v4/A, Me P.1092, I-17
MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, F11C-2, F4F, P-26 /-35 /-43, XP-44, P-47B,
Ar 65, Fw 190 A-1/A-5/D, I- 5 / 15 / 16(e)(l)

Heavy Fighters: P-38 F/J,  XP-58, Beaufighter,  Ao 192, Bf 110 C-6, Me 410, Do 335 A-1, Me 262, Tu-1, SE 100,

Attack Aircraft: Hs 123, Ha 137, Hs 129 A, Ju 87 G, Me 265, Me 1099 B-2
Bombers: Do 17 Z, He 111 H2, Pe-2, Do 217 M
 


White_Widow18 #8 Posted 09 December 2019 - 04:33 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12600 battles
  • 2,551
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostwylleEcoyote, on 09 December 2019 - 10:17 AM, said:

Why? Because we already have a mechanic for this.
getting MOAR kaboom is handled with Reinforced Hard Points by reducing the cool down period for that aforementioned kaboom. Thus more kaboom in the long run.
And balanced by penalizing your speed to get to the places you want to kaboom. 

As opposed to running Aerodynamic Pylons which do the reverse.
You get where you are going faster (if you have external ordnance) but it takes longer for your kaboom to come off cooldown. Which means less kaboom overall. 

Perhaps your suggestion would work better if one could mount 'smaller' kabooms (Ordnance packages from one tier lower for example) and get them reloaded faster due to the practice your "off screen" ground crews have acquired. Or you could mount an Ordnance package from one tier higher with a longer reload. (and conveniently they are already modeled)
The other balancing factor for this is that up/down-teiring your ordnance will effect the soft stats for your plane. Power/Weight ratios and drag values in particular come to mind. 
Which would lead to the noticeable loss/gains in Airspeed and Altitude ratings of the planes that can mount this equipment.

One more thing. How would you model this more payload on a sliding scale that is improving as you upgrade and calibrate the equipment by a few percentage points at a time? 
DO i get a fraction of an extra rocket or bomb? or do i get nothing until i reach a certain level and THEN get one extra rocket or bomb?

We have more kaboom over time as a mechanic. I'm looking at burst kaboom as opposed to over time. More of a boom/bust outlook.

As to scaling, that's a good question. It's a raw thought, in that I have several planes that I'd use ordnance on if I could have a front-loaded kaboom of more ordnance options to start.. but I've not thought heavily about the math of the upgrades for gear. I'd guess the simplest way would be to assign the % and then round to the nearest down # of ordnance from the point the percent increases it to past stock. 

Editing to add: Actually considering the math and balance now. Thinking that knowing the average match length and how many extra bombs total you can get percent wise during that time from the current reinforced hardpoints would be a good thing to know... so I'm going to try to figure that out once I kick my migraine. That'll give me some base concept numbers of strength to work from. The basic premise here would be instead of more ordnance over time, you get that ordnance more up front and the penalty is that it nerfs -something- in exchange for getting more of them up front as opposed to having to wait on them. Altitude was just the first stat besides the reload speed tradeoff that I thought of mostly because the greater weight would make it struggle to get up to altitude. Maybe nerf acceleration and climb instead of altitude? 
 


Edited by Stygian_Alchemist, 09 December 2019 - 04:40 PM.


Zigfreid #9 Posted 10 December 2019 - 04:09 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 17500 battles
  • 1,619
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    07-31-2013
American bombers are almost here with all the kaboom you could ask for.

wylleEcoyote #10 Posted 11 December 2019 - 02:28 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5953 battles
  • 983
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
to give you some perspective; Hardpoints will slow down both your cruise speed and max boost speed by as much as 5.6%
(Completely negating the buff from a booster and cutting the buff from Polished skin in half)
For this considerable draw back: Hardpoints grant a big ol' buff. 
Improving the reload speed of Bombs / Rockets by 21% and if you want to burn lots of token reassembling bonus traits you can increase either one (or both) by +10% for a total of

+ 31% reload speed. 

Where overall DoT is one thing, Changing the Alpha Damage of such munitions by that amount is apparently ... balance breaking.
Spoiler

One final bit of perspective would be the last time WeeGee did any kind of ordnance overhaul. It went something like this.

The last major change made by WG in this area was Nerfing the Demolition Expert pilot skill that improved munition damage and splash radius from +15% (maybe 20% i dont remember) down to the current +10% improvement. 
This was at about the same time that Aerodynamic Pylons (which also nerf overall damage over time for a game changing speed boost) were released with the top half of the british multi-role Line.Spoiler


Outside of Bombers in general; the only other mention of this subject (fussing with ordnance) arises when players talk about making stukas into dive bombers
Spoiler
and they recall that WG said its tricky to balance with the rest of the game  but we are working on it. It will be out, Soon™.

And that was years ago.

If you are really looking for "Something Different" in the ordnance equipment slot ... there IS more to playing this game than maxing damage output. I put a rocket sight and on my wildcat to have the excuse to run a pilot with a Racketeer skill.
I still suck at using rockets, but its a fun change of pace. 
So are aerodynamic pylons.  Its a welcome surprise to catch planes that dont expect you to be able to keep up and then laugh as they try to boost / dive away to go faster.

Having a bomb sight that improved your accuracy by 50% means you can fly 50% higher in the air when you drop bombs and still hit where you aim for.
Spoiler

Edited by wylleEcoyote, 11 December 2019 - 02:41 PM.

Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is much like my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
Usually I start on the right track and then a make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ... 
And yet it doesn't stop me from speculation.

Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters:   XP-31, Model 81A-1, P-40, P-51A, P-39N-1, XF15C, DH.100 F1,
Fw 56/159, He 51/112, Ar 68, Bf 109 B/E/E-3/F, Me 209 v4/A, Me P.1092, I-17
MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, F11C-2, F4F, P-26 /-35 /-43, XP-44, P-47B,
Ar 65, Fw 190 A-1/A-5/D, I- 5 / 15 / 16(e)(l)

Heavy Fighters: P-38 F/J,  XP-58, Beaufighter,  Ao 192, Bf 110 C-6, Me 410, Do 335 A-1, Me 262, Tu-1, SE 100,

Attack Aircraft: Hs 123, Ha 137, Hs 129 A, Ju 87 G, Me 265, Me 1099 B-2
Bombers: Do 17 Z, He 111 H2, Pe-2, Do 217 M
 


White_Widow18 #11 Posted 11 December 2019 - 07:21 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12600 battles
  • 2,551
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostwylleEcoyote, on 11 December 2019 - 08:28 AM, said:

to give you some perspective; Hardpoints will slow down both your cruise speed and max boost speed by as much as 5.6%
(Completely negating the buff from a booster and cutting the buff from Polished skin in half)
For this considerable draw back: Hardpoints grant a big ol' buff. 
Improving the reload speed of Bombs / Rockets by 21% and if you want to burn lots of token reassembling bonus traits you can increase either one (or both) by +10% for a total of

+ 31% reload speed. 

Where overall DoT is one thing, Changing the Alpha Damage of such munitions by that amount is apparently ... balance breaking.
Spoiler

One final bit of perspective would be the last time WeeGee did any kind of ordnance overhaul. It went something like this.

The last major change made by WG in this area was Nerfing the Demolition Expert pilot skill that improved munition damage and splash radius from +15% (maybe 20% i dont remember) down to the current +10% improvement. 
This was at about the same time that Aerodynamic Pylons (which also nerf overall damage over time for a game changing speed boost) were released with the top half of the british multi-role Line.Spoiler


Outside of Bombers in general; the only other mention of this subject (fussing with ordnance) arises when players talk about making stukas into dive bombers
Spoiler
and they recall that WG said its tricky to balance with the rest of the game  but we are working on it. It will be out, Soon™.

And that was years ago.

If you are really looking for "Something Different" in the ordnance equipment slot ... there IS more to playing this game than maxing damage output. I put a rocket sight and on my wildcat to have the excuse to run a pilot with a Racketeer skill.
I still suck at using rockets, but its a fun change of pace. 
So are aerodynamic pylons.  Its a welcome surprise to catch planes that dont expect you to be able to keep up and then laugh as they try to boost / dive away to go faster.

Having a bomb sight that improved your accuracy by 50% means you can fly 50% higher in the air when you drop bombs and still hit where you aim for.
Spoiler

I use all types of outboard equipment already. Nothing gives a boom/bust feel and that's part of what I'm trying to come up with a way to make happen. That's also why, likely, it would be wise that any equipment that does this nerfs reload speed. Look.. lets say I stay in the air for 3 minutes in say my EF-131 which has a 35 second reload I think? That means 5 reloads plus the initial load for a total of 6 loads of bombs. Meaning 24 total bombs in 3 minutes. I'm not looking for a way to make that increase in bombs over time. I'm saying I'd rather have a longer reload and bigger drop groups. So.. 3 minutes, 24 bombs.. instead of splitting that into 35 second reload chunks, how about an 85 second reload but I get 8 bombs up front and an altitude nerf of say.. 15%. Forces me to be lower and in more danger, gives me more options on how to work it or how to blow it and not be effective at all.

Again, still working on math.. but trying to better illustrate intent here.. which isn't actually to increase damage over time, just to make it more bursty as opposed to steady.



LeastWeasel #12 Posted 11 December 2019 - 07:44 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3351 battles
  • 356
  • [X3M] X3M
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

MR & occasional GA & very occasional bomber pilot here - chiming in to say that giving bombers more options to come closer to ensuring 1-pass capture of points might further sideline GA & MR. The view from down here is you already have speed, alt, blanket damage and reload times; packing in more bombs could negate the need for cleanup crew. Burst damage is far more valuable and game-affecting than reload time, especially when the majority of non-bombing bomber play is geared towards making yourself as hard to catch as possible & minimizing risk/engagement


Edited by LeastWeasel, 11 December 2019 - 07:49 PM.


White_Widow18 #13 Posted 11 December 2019 - 07:48 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12600 battles
  • 2,551
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
It could, it could also nerf a bomber's ability to just continuously keep flipping cap after cap if they don't manage bombs correctly and it could increase the likliehood of MRFs/etc. having a shot at something -to- clean up because front-loading those bombs, bombers might be more likely to hit multiple caps with teh same payload and be less concerned with perfect flips.

I'm not -entirely- sure how it would end up playing out in the meta in that regard and even as a suggestion I would -hope- if they took it and ran with it that they'd put it through playtesting to see if it was workable or asinine in the first place... of course... they don't always get that right either.

LeastWeasel #14 Posted 11 December 2019 - 08:10 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 3351 battles
  • 356
  • [X3M] X3M
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostStygian_Alchemist, on 11 December 2019 - 02:48 PM, said:

It could, it could also nerf a bomber's ability to just continuously keep flipping cap after cap if they don't manage bombs correctly and it could increase the likliehood of MRFs/etc. having a shot at something -to- clean up because front-loading those bombs, bombers might be more likely to hit multiple caps with teh same payload and be less concerned with perfect flips.

I'm not -entirely- sure how it would end up playing out in the meta in that regard and even as a suggestion I would -hope- if they took it and ran with it that they'd put it through playtesting to see if it was workable or asinine in the first place... of course... they don't always get that right either.

 

If there was/is anything they playtested, and likely still toy with now and then in regards to bombers - I’m assuming it’s the idea of “what if these bombs go to 11?”. :p I’ve got pretty solid faith that dynamic’s been thoroughly tested, as human beings of course we’re going to design and play with the extreme ends of the spectrum & then pull back. 

 

That is putting a lot of faith in things, but I do kinda assume the “megabomber” is an idea everyone would always come back to. Who knows, the American high-tiers might be home to that more “bursty”, but slower-moving playstyle. I just think up-front burst on high-speed, high-alt platforms in particular is a dangerous combination that could quickly get out of control. I’m reasonably decent at bomber interception (though outside of the Z and BVP 203, none of my high-tier heavies are specced), but catching some of those specialized birds is haaard already - bringing them more immediate bang is an uneven trade for any vulnerability... One *slightly*  easier-to-catch-or-kill bomber traded for a one-pass cap is a winning trade for the bomber. Add on to the fact that bombers are actually the best able to take advantage of “stealth” builds... you wouldn’t want to be able to pile more burst on a fast, high alt bomber for balance reasons. 

 

Maybe I could see this on a turret-heavy, mid-alt, relatively slow sky leviathan - but more as a plane design, not an option for existing bombers. Ordnance payload is a heavily defining feature.



White_Widow18 #15 Posted 12 December 2019 - 02:24 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12600 battles
  • 2,551
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostLeastWeasel, on 11 December 2019 - 02:10 PM, said:

 

If there was/is anything they playtested, and likely still toy with now and then in regards to bombers - I’m assuming it’s the idea of “what if these bombs go to 11?”. :p I’ve got pretty solid faith that dynamic’s been thoroughly tested, as human beings of course we’re going to design and play with the extreme ends of the spectrum & then pull back. 

 

That is putting a lot of faith in things, but I do kinda assume the “megabomber” is an idea everyone would always come back to. Who knows, the American high-tiers might be home to that more “bursty”, but slower-moving playstyle. I just think up-front burst on high-speed, high-alt platforms in particular is a dangerous combination that could quickly get out of control. I’m reasonably decent at bomber interception (though outside of the Z and BVP 203, none of my high-tier heavies are specced), but catching some of those specialized birds is haaard already - bringing them more immediate bang is an uneven trade for any vulnerability... One *slightly*  easier-to-catch-or-kill bomber traded for a one-pass cap is a winning trade for the bomber. Add on to the fact that bombers are actually the best able to take advantage of “stealth” builds... you wouldn’t want to be able to pile more burst on a fast, high alt bomber for balance reasons. 

 

Maybe I could see this on a turret-heavy, mid-alt, relatively slow sky leviathan - but more as a plane design, not an option for existing bombers. Ordnance payload is a heavily defining feature.

I can see your argument, but I don't entirely agree (obviously) and that's ok. I -would- point to the B-32 as an example of that front-loaded boom and how I'd expect an equipment piece to modify your plane to being in order to give you that extra front-load. And honestly.. I'm -not- convinced they've playtested and experimented nearly that much. I could be wrong.. but with playtesting we're entirely out of the loop here on NA so :/ :( 


Edited by Stygian_Alchemist, 12 December 2019 - 02:24 AM.


CorvusCorvax #16 Posted 20 December 2019 - 03:53 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4428 battles
  • 4,652
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostLeastWeasel, on 11 December 2019 - 07:44 PM, said:

MR & occasional GA & very occasional bomber pilot here - chiming in to say that giving bombers more options to come closer to ensuring 1-pass capture of points might further sideline GA & MR. The view from down here is you already have speed, alt, blanket damage and reload times; packing in more bombs could negate the need for cleanup crew. Burst damage is far more valuable and game-affecting than reload time, especially when the majority of non-bombing bomber play is geared towards making yourself as hard to catch as possible & minimizing risk/engagement


My argument would be that if you want to carry more bombs, you have to make a weight sacrifice.  Like a whole engine upgrade.  OR defensive armament - like instead of 23mm cannon, you can only carry 15mm.  Or less of them.  More bombload flexibility means that you have to sacrifice flexibility elsewhere.  A straight up buff to bombload without a straight up nerf in at least one other place would cause imbalance.  Seriously, if the upgrade is a no-brainer, then it's OP.  There need to be real trade-offs so that you have to think hard about whether or not to do it.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users