Reduceing the size of turrets with weapon emitter blocks

[Nickizzy]

A fairly realistic example of this that comes to mind is Halo's UNSC Archer pod. They are fired in any direction, from a number of separate launch points, and can be aimed at anything they so choose. Yet, as of now, you'd have to point the ship at a target in order to fire them.

We need (First up) a decent free-cam mode, then the ability to lock weapons off-axis (Cannons should definitely be able to fire in a cone, instead of a straight line, allowing for semi-aimed broadside weapons). Especially missiles, which should be able to acquire as a target anything that the scanners can detect...which means no limits on aiming.

Press z.
Wanda fire weapons? Place camera blocks everywhere. It's what they're for.

I like alterintel's idea. However: Make it so that effects and secondaries can be placed in the base. That way, it acts like a real weapon (Effects are in the ammo, sheer firepower comes from size/barrel length) and is not too overpowered.

All the effects, and a certain % of the primary weapon(configz) . That way you could still need the big barrel, but not all of the blocks. Unless you make a very specialized weapon(which is hard to do with turrets because you can't set priorities), you usually have a decent chunk more than a third of your weapon blocks will be primary. As a starting point maybe 50% of your primary has to be in the barrel. If there aren't enough linked modules in the barrel, then the weapon will only recognize the modules in the base that would make the percentage(I.e. 50 primary in base, 50 in barrel. 10 primary modules get destroyed off the barrel, so the fraction of primary in the barrel is now 4/9, not 1/2. The weapon noticed this and ignores primary modules in the base until the percentage is back at or more than(it rounds up in case of odd values) the config amount. If base modules are now destroyed then the weapon will redo the calculation.

 

[Madman198237]

No reason to allow any primary modules to occupy the base.

It doesn't make any logical sense, and the requirement of all-in-barrel limits it to 66% non-barrel blocks. No extra screwing around needed. Getting shot and losing blocks works exactly like it does with an everything-in-barrel setup. Lose primary blocks? Secondary + tertiary lose effectiveness.

 

[NeonSturm]

Why is this needed? I think it is already possible!

.'T' // Barrel outside the ship hull.
. O //
. / X \
=== O === Hull of the main ship around the turret
| oOOOo |
| oOOOo | Turret body.
¯¯¯¯X¯¯¯¯ Turret attachment.

 

[Kyoretsu]

You can say what you want about JJTrek's content, but if Gene Roddenberry could have made his Treks look that good, he would have.

Gene Roddenberry was still producing Star Trek when TNG came out, all the way up to it's last season. His vision for the weapons in his universe is clear. Turrets are a thing of the past. J.J. Abrams wanted to "reimagine" Roddenberry's work. Making it "look good" is irrelevant. He foresaw a time without turrets, and the phaser array is his vision. One upstart director is not evidence of your concept, he's the exception.

 

[jayman38]

In reference to the Star Trek starships not having any moving turrets, maybe that's a good argument for having static emitter blocks that can be placed on the main ship and aim in any direction that is not blocked by the ship. However, there would need to be some "nerfing" to prevent this from being used so much more often than mechanical turrets.
E.g.
1. 10% power penalty as if the emitter was a second output
2. If the emitter is destroyed, the linked weapon system cannot be fired, even if it is remapped to the hotbar as a non-emitter weapon.
3. 10% damage penalty
These are just examples, and the values should be server-configurable. (So, for instance, you could have a Star Trek server with 0% penalty for this kind of turret.)

 

[Ithirahad]

Gene Roddenberry was still producing Star Trek when TNG came out, all the way up to it's last season. His vision for the weapons in his universe is clear. Turrets are a thing of the past. J.J. Abrams wanted to "reimagine" Roddenberry's work. Making it "look good" is irrelevant. He foresaw a time without turrets, and the phaser array is his vision. One upstart director is not evidence of your concept, he's the exception.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of his vision; it was just a way to explain the cheap VFX.

 

[NeonSturm]

Has someone actually tried to make a turret shooting out of the bottom and placing it inverse?

I think that's the solution.
Not mounting a barrel on the hull outward, but on the hull inward and have all the cannon blocks in the base left and right of it (to make the whole 2-entity thing round).

 

[Insane Randomness]

Gene Roddenberry was still producing Star Trek when TNG came out, all the way up to it's last season. His vision for the weapons in his universe is clear. Turrets are a thing of the past. J.J. Abrams wanted to "reimagine" Roddenberry's work. Making it "look good" is irrelevant. He foresaw a time without turrets, and the phaser array is his vision. One upstart director is not evidence of your concept, he's the exception.

Butthurt much, trekkie? Let me guess, you were one of the ones who hated the new movie because it was too "fun".

 

[Ithirahad]

Butthurt much, trekkie? Let me guess, you were one of the ones who hated the new movie because it was too "fun".

I dislike the new movies because they just don't feel right, to me, for a Star Trek movie (granted, many of the old ones were crap) but yeah, the butthurt is comically strong with this one...

 

[Insane Randomness]

I dislike the new movies because they just don't feel right, to me, for a Star Trek movie (granted, many of the old ones were crap) but yeah, the butthurt is comically strong with this one...

I can't stand hard core trekkies. I put up with enough of them in Star Trek Online. Finally got fed up with it and came back here to relax for a day, and I STILL gotta put up with them. :P Go figure.

 

[Ithirahad]

I can't stand hard core trekkies. I put up with enough of them in Star Trek Online. Finally got fed up with it and came back here to relax for a day, and I STILL gotta put up with them. :p Go figure.

I consider myself a somewhat hardcore Trekkie, but Roddenberry fanboys/white-knights are something else entirely... I was hoping not to run into them here either. >.>

 

[Insane Randomness]

I consider myself a somewhat hardcore Trekkie, but Roddenberry fanboys/white-knights are something else entirely...

XD Roddenberry fanboys. Of course you're right. I am a hardcore trekkie as well. Spent the entirety of my childhood with my dad turning on TNG every night. But if JJ Abrams comes along and adds his version of galaxy into the mix, I won't exactly get upset.

Actually, it might look pretty good.

 

[Kyoretsu]

Butthurt much, trekkie? Let me guess, you were one of the ones who hated the new movie because it was too "fun".

No, I hated it because it catered to idiots.

You kind of give off a Dudebrah vibe. I am assuming you're a fan?

 

[Insane Randomness]

No, I hated it because it catered to idiots.

You kind of give off a Dudebrah vibe. I am assuming you're a fan?

I'm a fan of all trek, JJ or otherwise.

Ironically though, I think the original series is the worst of the bunch. Also, idiots buy tickets. In the millions. It's better than Star Trek dying off all together, is it not? Or would you rather it had ended up like Firefly?

 

[Kyoretsu]

I'm a fan of all trek, JJ or otherwise.

Ironically though, I think the original series is the worst of the bunch. Also, idiots buy tickets. In the millions. It's better than Star Trek dying off all together, is it not? Or would you rather it had ended up like Firefly?

I agree. TOS merely created the universe, it's later installments were far better. That notion being the entire point of my argument. The universe and it's contributors (Rick Berman and Brannon Braga being some of the biggest) understood the technology and focused on expanding it. Both of you keep building strawmen and ad hominem for no purpose. Abrams is not the go to. If you watch the series, you know that. Arrays are Trek, turrets are SW.


You can call me names all you want, but that act of the matter is pretty simple, your argument has no leg to stand on.

 

[Insane Randomness]

I agree. TOS merely created the universe, it's later installments were far better. That notion being the entire point of my argument. The universe and it's contributors (Rick Berman and Brannon Braga being some of the biggest) understood the technology and focused on expanding it. Both of you keep building strawmen and ad hominem for no purpose. Abrams is not the go to. If you watch the series, you know that. Arrays are Trek, turrets are SW.


You can call me names all you want, but that act of the matter is pretty simple, your argument has no leg to stand on.

I don't really think it matters. If we were sitting in 1995, then I might agree with you. Trek was still a "nerd thing" back then, and most fans of the series understood beam arrays. But now that Trek is trying to gain more viewers, bring a new, younger generation into its fold, and breathe some new life into the fandom, it, in it's own little way, is better. You have to explain beam arrays to a newcomer a bit more than you do a laser gun on a swivel.

The entire point of JJ Trek was to reinvent the wheel. Why not go with turrets instead of arrays? We're trying new things, might as well make the weapons new too.

 

[NeonSturm]

I liked the seasons of Star-Hunter the most (but season1 was better than the next production).
In S1, every character was more himself, in S2 everyone was like permanently depressed and complying to societies' rules.

 

[Kyoretsu]

I don't really think it matters. If we were sitting in 1995, then I might agree with you. Trek was still a "nerd thing" back then, and most fans of the series understood beam arrays. But now that Trek is trying to gain more viewers, bring a new, younger generation into its fold, and breathe some new life into the fandom, it, in it's own little way, is better. You have to explain beam arrays to a newcomer a bit more than you do a laser gun on a swivel.

The entire point of JJ Trek was to reinvent the wheel. Why not go with turrets instead of arrays? We're trying new things, might as well make the weapons new too.

Why not have both?

 

[NeonSturm]

Why not have both?

imba?

Imagine a ship has places a block 1000m in front of it's nose. The weapons have now 1km more range without this 1 block affecting turning speed at all.
Additionally, this 1 block has a high evasion and is not automatically targeted like a ship-core.

It's going to introduce 1000-pages lists of balance issues and required changes.

 

[Ithirahad]

Why not have both?

To me, because - especially in Starmade - development man-hours are very finite, and implementing a new "weapon array" thingy would probably take significantly more time than shrinking turrets by letting you put secondary systems in the turret base. Also, because honestly, beam emitter strips are kind of unique to Star Trek. I can't think of any other Sci-Fi that uses something similar, unless it's just because they couldn't make high enough quality CGI to show the bits of tech that the pew pew beams come out of.