A new Turret accuracy mechanic.

[Keptick]

As many of you surely know, turrets now have a default accuracy setting of 10. Meaning that they will be 99.9% accurate at 10 meter range with the accuracy drastically decreasing the longer the distance is. Now, this system is nice and all, but it doesn't reach the goal it was meant to achieve in the first place. This goal being that gigantic anti-capital turrets don't completely obliterate smaller ships. However, while not at all fixing the issue this also brought in several problems for ALL turret sizes. Indeed, a miniature turret can't hit the broad side of a barn either.

SOLUTION:
Make the turret's accuracy rating (percentage) depend on two variables: The turrets's mass (or dimensions depending on how complicated it could get) and the ENEMY ship's mass (or dimension). So, lets say that you have a 10 mass turret shooting at a 100 mass ship (1:10 mass ratio), the turret would be 100% accurate. However, if you were to get a 100 mass turret firing at a 10 mass ship (10:1 mass ratio), the accuracy rating should be slashed in accordingly. Meaning that the 100 mass turret would now have a 10% accuracy rating (this value could be determined through discussion). A ratio setting could be made available in the config to determine what size discrepancy affects turret accuracy.

What this would basically ensure that world ending turrets would only be useful against their intended targets, having an extremely low chance of hitting small ships, while also giving smaller turrets a chance at hitting their intended targets. This would also make strategic turret building more important, since capital ships would now need to be equipped with smaller point defense turrets to counter potential enemy fighters (Basically no more OP big ships, since the fighters can destroy the smaller turrets).

This would also add an entirely new layer of fun to the game. Just imagine the scenario: A wave of fighter attacks a capital ship, alone they can't take out the bigger turrets or the ship itself but they can take out the smaller point defense turrets. Paving the path for bigger bombers specifically made to take out reinforced targets (with a missile/pulse combo for example). Then the destroyers can come in with a much lowered risk of failure.

Ok, I may be going a bit overboard with that scenario but It is my belief that this proposed system would be better than what we currently have now since the current system just renders every turret completely useless (save the derpy lock-on missile turrets). It would basically make turrets good at what they are meant for without crushing the underling.

Thank you for your time,
Keptick

 

[Winterhome]

How about we do it like most other shooters?

If the turret is moving or turning, its accuracy is lower. If it's firing at a stationary target, its accuracy will be pinpoint.

The turret will naturally attempt to lead the target as well, so if something's moving in a constant, straight line, that might as well be considered being stationary.


Throw in mass-based turning speed, and the option to add thrusters or some other block to the turret's internals to make it track faster.

 

[Keptick]

How about we do it like most other shooters?

If the turret is moving or turning, its accuracy is lower. If it's firing at a stationary target, its accuracy will be pinpoint.

The turret will naturally attempt to lead the target as well, so if something's moving in a constant, straight line, that might as well be considered being stationary.


Throw in mass-based turning speed, and the option to add thrusters or some other block to the turret's internals to make it track faster.

How about both :D .

FPS shooter mechanics don't really apply to a space game btw. The closest we could get is EVE, which has a "tracking" mechanic in place. It basically means that, for example, a battleship will have a very hard time tracking a frigate sized ship.

 

[Winterhome]

How about both :D .

FPS shooter mechanics don't really apply to a space game btw. The closest we could get is EVE, which has a "tracking" mechanic in place. It basically means that, for example, a battleship will have a very hard time tracking a frigate sized ship.

At the very least, turning applies because of inertia.

You spin something, it'll want to keep spinning, and you need some pretty strong and accurate motors to stop it from spinning. Thus, the accuracy issue. As for while moving, perhaps sudden changes in velocity decreases accuracy a little for a moment.

Basically, I'm thinking that instead of making it a numbers game in which a giant turret won't hit a stationary tiny ship, it should be based on whether the pilot is paying attention or not.

 

[Keptick]

At the very least, turning applies because of inertia.

You spin something, it'll want to keep spinning, and you need some pretty strong and accurate motors to stop it from spinning. Thus, the accuracy issue. As for while moving, perhaps sudden changes in velocity decreases accuracy a little for a moment.

Basically, I'm thinking that instead of making it a numbers game in which a giant turret won't hit a stationary tiny ship, it should be based on whether the pilot is paying attention or not.

You raise a very valid point, but the big turret could still hit the immobile small ship (with very little change). I think that BOTH turning and my suggestion should apply.

I'm not at all inrgumenting that turrets shouldn't spin slower if they are bigger :\

 

[CleanRabbit]

keptick, your idea sounds good, but is flawed in that accuracy should in no way be affected by the size difference between turret and target.

Velocity of target and Distance to target. These are the keys that should affect a turret's ability to hit what it's shooting at. The fact that a turret is shooting at a big target should only increase it's chances of hitting when it fails to score a direct hit - by "direct hit", I mean a shot that's perfectly aimed at the ship's core.
The closer a ship is, the larger it's perceived size is, so a turret's ability to hit it should be increased. Further away and the target's perceived size is smaller, reducing the chance that those non-perfect shots will hit.

~CR~

 

[FunnyBunny14]

No, the default accuracy is 1000. You might want to remove your starmade folder (and obviously you will have to a backup of your universe) and reinstall starmade. You should have the new config file then.

Or you could just change it manually, that works too. (Actually, it is a lot easier).

 

[Keptick]

keptick, your idea sounds good, but is flawed in that accuracy should in no way be affected by the size difference between turret and target.

Velocity of target and Distance to target. These are the keys that should affect a turret's ability to hit what it's shooting at. The fact that a turret is shooting at a big target should only increase it's chances of hitting when it fails to score a direct hit - by "direct hit", I mean a shot that's perfectly aimed at the ship's core.
The closer a ship is, the larger it's perceived size is, so a turret's ability to hit it should be increased. Further away and the target's perceived size is smaller, reducing the chance that those non-perfect shots will hit.

~CR~

True. However, small turrets currently can't hit small ships reliably from even 100 meters away...

 

[Unnamed25]

No, the default accuracy is 1000. You might want to remove your starmade folder (and obviously you will have to a backup of your universe) and reinstall starmade. You should have the new config file then.

Or you could just change it manually, that works too. (Actually, it is a lot easier).

If default accuracy is 1000, then why does everyone say accuracy sucks?
I remember it used to be around 100/1000 accuracy before but it got chamged.

 

[CleanRabbit]

True. However, small turrets currently can't hit small ships reliably from even 100 meters away...

Oh I'm not disagreeing there, just saying my personal preference for turret mechanics would be balanced based on distance between turret and target, and the size of the target.

 

[Malacodor]

I want a realistic solution to this problem, because realism helps new players to understand how the game works. In reality further away bigger targets are as easy to hit as closer smaller targets. So there shouldn't be an artificial modifier which takes size into account, but not distance.

First, turret physics should be brought in line with real world physics, then the OP's intended "big turrets are bad against small ships" will come automatically. A limit to turning speed could be explained by technical limitations, but isn't even necessary. Instead the angular acceleration should be limited depending on mass (the same should apply to ships as well). Even a titan could realistically do a 360° turn in less than a second, but it couldn't stop instantly. Instead it would need like a minute to come to a halt, and of course the same time to reach that turning speed in the first place.

In the future cores will lose much of their vital importance, so core drilling is just a temporary problem. Thus inaccuracy as a means against core drilling won't be needed in the long run. A real turret would use basically the same routines as Bobby does in-game, which means a high accuracy is realistic. Targets which do not change their speed nor their direction aren't harder to hit for an AI than a stationary target. Fighter pilots flying that way should be hit even by big turrets. But if a fighter quickly changes direction or velocity, aka sidestepping, big turrets can't follow them due to their inertia. If firing sideways is removed even beams from big turrets can't hit a skilled fighter pilot.

 

[NeonSturm]

I like realistic behaviour:

• perceived size (tangent of angle) = length|height|width / distance
• accuracy = dependent on position expected at projectile output to position now

But in games which are newbie-friendly, we should perceive the simulated flight path as guide for the real flight path.
I mean that the ship tries to dodge projectiles automatically and the path you fly is the centre of the flight path with dodging ship.
(in the perspective of a turrets accuracy code)

 

[Keptick]

I want a realistic solution to this problem, because realism helps new players to understand how the game works. In reality further away bigger targets are as easy to hit as closer smaller targets. So there shouldn't be an artificial modifier which takes size into account, but not distance.

First, turret physics should be brought in line with real world physics, then the OP's intended "big turrets are bad against small ships" will come automatically. A limit to turning speed could be explained by technical limitations, but isn't even necessary. Instead the angular acceleration should be limited depending on mass (the same should apply to ships as well). Even a titan could realistically do a 360° turn in less than a second, but it couldn't stop instantly. Instead it would need like a minute to come to a halt, and of course the same time to reach that turning speed in the first place.

In the future cores will lose much of their vital importance, so core drilling is just a temporary problem. Thus inaccuracy as a means against core drilling won't be needed in the long run. A real turret would use basically the same routines as Bobby does in-game, which means a high accuracy is realistic. Targets which do not change their speed nor their direction aren't harder to hit for an AI than a stationary target. Fighter pilots flying that way should be hit even by big turrets. But if a fighter quickly changes direction or velocity, aka sidestepping, big turrets can't follow them due to their inertia. If firing sideways is removed even beams from big turrets can't hit a skilled fighter pilot.

The point of my suggestion was to make it easy for the devs to change. What you suggest is nice (I agree with it) but it would require a massive core overhaul...

I just want something that works until we get a good mechanic like you suggested. Cause right now it's either 100% accuracy or shit hitting everything BUT the target...

 

[Malacodor]

we should perceive the simulated flight path as guide for the real flight path.
I mean that the ship tries to dodge projectiles automatically and the path you fly is the centre of the flight path with dodging ship.

That would remove the need for a pilot to have skill.

 

[Valiant70]

I think realism is the best way to achieve balance. Intuitively, a larger turret should be less accurate than a small, light one.

It would be most realistic to reduce a turret's accuracy based on its moment of inertia, but that's probably too CPU-intensive to calculate, so basing the accuracy debuff for larger turrets solely off of the turrets' mass seems reasonable.

- Accuracy should probably start to debuff somewhere around 75 mass, the size of a small fighter. (Fighter vs fighter is fair, right?)
- This would begin to allow some random (NOT CENTER-AVOIDING) deviation from the target.
- A 1000 mass turret should be able to hit within a 20-meter circle at 1 km, with an equal chance of hitting the center as any other block within that radius. After that, I honestly don't think the accuracy should need to drop any more.

That gives a 9-meter-wide fighter plenty of chance not to be obliterated, while allowing the turret to hit and heavily damage a destroyer, with a small chance of coring it if it stays in range too long. (After the new HP system is implemented, the chance of blowing up the destroyer should increase to a more appropriate statistic.)

EDIT: Keep in mind that fighter squadrons attacking a large ship should expect losses. That is also realistic. An effective lone wolf fighter is just romanticized fantasy, and is stupid and overpowered in a multiplayer game. A large fighter-bomber squadron overwhelming a battlecruiser is reasonable. I think the reason you don't see fighters much in Starmade is that it's more effective to use players as captains of corvettes and destroyers, not because fighter squadrons are ineffective.

 

[NeonSturm]

That would remove the need for a pilot to have skill.

Original text:

But in games which are newbie-friendly, we should perceive the simulated flight path as guide for the real flight path.
I mean that the ship tries to dodge projectiles automatically and the path you fly is the centre of the flight path with dodging ship.

You forgot to quote a part of what I said.
Obviously (to me) some peoples want this "newbie-friendly" way.


If you have a 20-block circle and a fighter is 9 width 4 or 5 height and 25 long, it still has a hit chance of about 12%.

If the fire-rate is high enough, the fighter will receive about 12% dmg from an anti-capital gun? And sometimes 20% but sometimes only 4% which can mean 50% or 0% in 2-3 shots (dependent on algorithm)?

 

[Malacodor]

Obviously (to me) some peoples want this "newbie-friendly" way.

Newbies should stick with Isanths and avoid attacking titans with a fighter.

 

[madmann135]

Currently there is a near 180 degree fire arc for cannon and beam turrets. In my opinion take away that 180 fire arc, replace it with a smaller fire arc (example 1 degree), and finally give turrets good accuracy (with an option to improve long distance accuracy) problem solved because turrets will have to track their targets.
Larger turrets will be slower to track and smaller turrets will be faster to track. Currently the larger the turret the slower it moves but if a turret needs to track a target then the turret's size will dictate how fast it tracks. Distance will pay a factor as the closer the target the harder it will be to track, the more mobile the target the more difficult it would be to track.

Not to mention it would look better. I find it odd to have a turret looking down while it is shooting up.

 

[NeonSturm]

Maybe accuracy should depend on how much of an angle a turret has moved in the past second/tick/Xms

If a turret leads for example between 1° and 10° arc behind the real angle - dependent on speed and turn acceleration, there would be few issues.

I think turn acceleration and turn synchronisation with target's pov angle change is the key; if you think all other options are too unrealistic ((like centre avoiding targeting or a fixed inaccuracy in blocks at the target dependent on weight proportions))

 

[Cablestinks]

This all should also only apply to AI, Leave the user to adjust and perfect their Technic. But computers being what they are they would hit 100 % if given the chance.