The Problems With The UEF - Part 7 (The Ravager)

@veteranashe

Does the ravager spin up before a unit is in range? Like a turret points at units out of range.

Unfortunately, no. It only spins up once an enemy unit enters its range.
This is a downside of the Ravager as it is the only PD that needs to spin up - losing time & range to deal it's damage.

However, one good thing is that it does still spin up whilst it is rotating - meaning that if a unit enters its range, and the Ravager is facing away from that unit - it still spins up whilst rotating. By the time it's aiming at the target, it can shoot its volley.

~ Stryker

@comradestryker The problem with your comparisons is you're including the spin-up time to work out the DPS in the current version of the ravager, but then excluding the spin-up time when working out how to give it the same DPS in the new 'continuous' version, despite this new version having a longer spin-up time.

I'd just assume the ravager will fire on average of say 2 fire cycles (i.e. 18s of trying to fire based on the figures you gave in the 'base position' scenario). That way if normalising dps in the 'continuous fire' scenario for how it is at the moment it effectively ends up getting a slight buff in scenarios where it's firing for an extended period of time but a slight nerf in scenarios where it's firing briefly (vs your approach which sounds like it'd be a nerf in all scenarios). The buff would also be compensated by no longer having a greater alpha/strike damage, since you usually want to kill a unit asap so frontloading damage is typically better.

@maudlin27

The problem with your comparisons is you're including the spin-up time to work out the DPS in the current version of the ravager, but then excluding the spin-up time when working out how to give it the same DPS in the new 'continuous' version, despite this new version having a longer spin-up time.

Correct. The reason I left it out was because it would skew the overall damage output. Let's see why:

First, we need to match the current timing of a fire cycle, which is 9 seconds. That cycle would be comprised of a spin up time plus 1.5 vollies. So, 3 second + 4 seconds + 2 seconds which, again, needs to match the original damage output. That's 9 seconds to dish out 2,625 damage (~292 DPS). However, the consequent volley would instead be instant without the spin up time. Meaning the next 9 seconds would be all fire without spin up/cool down.

So, it we kept everything the same and fired for 9 more seconds, it would mean more damage output which goes over 2,625 damage. Effectively keeping the first volley the same and buffing consequent vollies. Which again, is not my intention to buff as the damage output is fine as is. Changing that would also affect gameplay.

However, in hindsight, this could also be of benefit since, as you mentioned before, the strike damage would be reduced with this change. Having it act like so would probably make up for that. Dishing about 3,000 damage per volley afterwards.

Side note: This could also give the user a placebo feeling that it fires faster dealing more damage over time.

~Stryker

Nearly a year ago, I wrote this post.

Since it received considerable positive support, especially from some well-known names;
I wanted to showcase what this rework would look like in-game, so we can all get a better idea of how it would work.

You can see the changes in action here.
And for specific, more detailed changes, here.

I tried matching the stats as best as I could to keep the damage output nearly the same, with, again, a more continuous fire stream.

Looking forward to that red, glowing barrel, @Jip!

~ Stryker

So we're getting continuous fire ravager? Good shit.

Keeping the on paper DPS the same but switching to a continuous fire mode (lower rate of fire, no reload) would by itself significantly increase effective DPS against t1/t2, because you're not leaving as much damage on the table (read as: projectiles in the air) when you switch targets.

Also I'd suggest taking one element in the OP and tweaking it in isolation, instead of the 4/5 all at once.

That is a concern I have too, but will be a little difficult to manage.
We'll have to see where it goes, from here.
This is mainly just a proof of concept and so, I leave it to the balance team from here on.
IF they choose to go with it, that is.

~ Stryker

I Like this Change. Not because a change is required, but simply because it's cool! Please implement.

And I don't think making it continuous fire isn't that big of a problem as due to slow Muzzle velocity the over kill on T1 and T2 units will still be there and a buff against T1 and T2 units isn't necessarily a bad thing considering the price and how bad it ist against a bunch of T1 spam and almost in general.

I posted this earlier on the Discord post, but here it is so you guys can read it too. Albeit, slightly edited.

So, I have some bad news.

The goal of this Ravager rework has, unfortunately, hit a wall.

There are currently two issues that we currently face.
This comes down to Sound & Textures and was not as simple as just tweaking a few stats and numbers.

Some quick info beforehand:

Ravager Fire Cycle: 8 Secs
Spin-Up: 2 Secs
Fire: 3 Secs
Cool-Down: 3 Secs.

Sound:

When the Ravager fires, it spins up, then fires for a few seconds, then cools down (fire-cycle above ^).
This can be heard (and seen) in-game as that is the 'sound sample' for the fire cycle.
(Note: Cooldown/Reload has no audio.)
With the rework, the spin-up and cooldown times in the audio cue overlap with the new fire cycle/animation.
This means that at certain points you cannot hear the Ravager firing even though it is doing so.

The only way around that is to either make a custom sound or to replace it with one that already exists, but this would not be preferable, nor feasible.

Projectile Texture:

The Ravager fires a projectile with a texture of 5 'energy bullets'.
Editing this particle to reduce the number of "effects" is very difficult.

This can be worked around by, again, creating a custom texture or replacing it with another effect.
But we face the same issue, once more.
Technically able to do it, but not easy to do.

New Goal?

The best case that we can do with what we got, is to reduce the reload/cooldown time or remove it altogether.
This would partially increase fire time by about 3 seconds.
So, Vollies would only have a 2-second downtime and then a 3-second fire time.
This makes a 5-second fire cycle (from 8 secs).
Not continuous like I had hoped, but at least more fire time than what we currently have.

Consequences & Work:

You may say: "These are just two insignificant problems... can't they just be ignored?"
And unfortunately, no, we cannot ignore them.
Breaking these rules would break the immersion of the structure and how it would operate in-game.

And, I can understand.
In my opinion, it's the little things, the little details that matter.
So much time and effort has gone into every unit and every structure to work properly.
From models to textures, scripts, animations, sound... and so on.
They all come together and makeup everything in perfect harmony, and we would not want to disrupt that.

Thank You:

From the original developers at GPG, to the veteran and current devs for FAF;
First off, I thank them all for their hard work in delivering all that they have done for the game.
The game would not be alive if it weren't for all of their hard work.

And thank you all for your support.
I would not have gotten this far if it wasn't for you guys.

Conclusion:

That all being said...

I could be wrong and possibly may have misunderstood the information when it was shared with me.
Or maybe someone knows a workaround.
If so, please let me know.

Regardless, I will keep trying to see what I can do.
Thanks for your time and patience.

~ Stryker

inspired by comradestryker i made this little mod to the Ravager that now fires the projectile from the TMD without stoping for reloading giving it non stop fire power!, imo it does look more realistic though the only issue now is finding a sound that fits, however in testing there seems to be very little down time from the sound effect re playing so it seems to be up to the task for now.

@caliber

The TMD effect... now that's something I didn't think about.
It does look cool, I'll give it that.

My only concern with that is the impact effects.
Those have a blueish hue to them, as the original fire effect is blue.
Did you adjust those as well?

~ Stryker