Read by Council AI Assisted Aim

[Edymnion]

Right now, the only really viable ship based weapons for taking out other ships are lock on missiles and beams (IMO), due to the fact that they can actually be accurately aimed by a human.

Cannon fire, dumbfire missiles, etc for me at least are relegated to either base assault weapons (cannons for cutting out pirate station faction blocks, missiles simply because I'm aiming at the broad side of a barn) or as turrets (due to the fact that the AI can actually hit a small fast moving target by properly leading the shots to a degree no human can match at range).

So how about a little AI assist on aiming the dumbfire stuff?

Just to the point that if you click on the target directly, the array will automatically lead the shot the amount required as if it had been fired by a turret.

Wouldn't replace the lock on missiles because the calculation would be done at the time of firing and the target could still change direction to evade, but it would make all of the weapons viable as a ship based system instead of (again, what I consider) the pretty rigid "this is for ships, this is for turrets" division we have now.

 

[Ithirahad]

Cannons can very much hit enemy ships, in fact they're generally the preferred weapon for block damage because of their better damage model.

Missile/Cannon is a little harder to use, but in closer-quarters combat you can do some serious damage with them.

I hate to use this phrase, but... Git gud.

Granted, I wouldn't mind if dumbfire missiles were given a very slight curve towards their target.

 

[Edymnion]

I hate to use this phrase, but... Git gud.

If you can actually hit a fast moving fighter at range with on board cannons on a consistent basis, you are definitely better than I am, or anyone I know.

 

[alterintel]

If you can actually hit a fast moving fighter at range with on board cannons on a consistent basis, you are definitely better than I am, or anyone I know.

I agree, even though your original post failed to mention a fast moving fighter. I to have a very difficult time trying to hit a fast moving fighter wit cannons. It is possible to have AI assist currently in a round about way. This can be done with turrets (as you stated above) or non-moving turrets which are simply aimed where you are looking. The AI will still have a small arc of fire even if it can't move.

 

[Ithirahad]

If you want to hit something like that with cannons, then strap Overdrive on your fighter and close in, or just lead your damn shots and hope for the best... Not every weapon needs to work for every possible application. Cannons already have enough advantages over beams.

 

[nightrune]

I'm pretty sure that's the reason for having a small fast moving fighter...

 

[CyberTao]

Fighters are supposed to be hard to hit, their advantage is supposed to be their ability to upright dodge damage.

Also, the argument of difficulty hitting a fast moving target? I guess its valid if you are in a large or stationary entity, but if you were in a similiar sized ship its easy enough to keep up and 'negate' his speed by matching it.

 

[Malacodor]

Instead of re-inventing the wheel we could do what other space combat games do and simply display a crosshair, which shows where to aim at with the current weapon.

 

[Edymnion]

I'm pretty sure that's the reason for having a small fast moving fighter...

Which is completely negated by the simple fact that an AI turret can shoot them out of the sky with ease. I cover my larger ships in cannon/cannon and missile/cannon turrets because they chew things up like crazy, and focus my ship based weapons on lock-on torpedoes and a cannon I use for cutting into large stationary targets.

Its not a question of "should fighters be able to dodge damage" because the simple answer is that currently they cannot. The turrets can peg them almost every time.

Does anyone actually use cannons or dumbfire missiles as their primary weapon on even a moderately sized ship (that isn't a drone or run by a Bobby)? Simple matter is that they are exceedingly difficult to use for a human, but a piece of cake for the AI.

When an AI turret with an array half the size can out-damage a human driven weapon simply because it can hit consistantly while the human can't isn't balance by any definition I'm aware of, its just a poor interface for the human.

 

[nightrune]

Which is completely negated by the simple fact that an AI turret can shoot them out of the sky with ease. I cover my larger ships in cannon/cannon and missile/cannon turrets because they chew things up like crazy, and focus my ship based weapons on lock-on torpedoes and a cannon I use for cutting into large stationary targets.

Its not a question of "should fighters be able to dodge damage" because the simple answer is that currently they cannot. The turrets can peg them almost every time.

Does anyone actually use cannons or dumbfire missiles as their primary weapon on even a moderately sized ship (that isn't a drone or run by a Bobby)? Simple matter is that they are exceedingly difficult to use for a human, but a piece of cake for the AI.

When an AI turret with an array half the size can out-damage a human driven weapon simply because it can hit consistantly while the human can't isn't balance by any definition I'm aware of, its just a poor interface for the human.

Sounds like different use cases to me. I would be happy with a target that helped me lead though. Like Malacodor suggested.

 

[Malacodor]

Fighters are supposed to be hard to hit, their advantage is supposed to be their ability to upright dodge damage.

A fighter pilot who flys in a straight line deserves to be hit. If you constantly change direction and/or speed in an unpredictable way, leading the target won't help to hit you, it might even help to miss you.

 

[jayman38]

I remember in the game Vegastrike, that you couldn't really do combat effectively until you got the Auto-assist gimbal mounts, which would auto-aim for you when you got your intended target within your aiming circle.

Sure, you could occasionally hit ships manually, but you were not nearly as effective, and you certainly weren't competitive against AI-driven ships.

However, I'm not a fighter pilot-type player anymore, so I'd rather set my turrets to attack my target and let the Bobbies handle combat for me.

We really need turret safeties, so I can turn that off when not in a combat situation.

 

[JinM]

I have a hard time too, finding some diversity in the weapon setups you can use, if you want to fight against fast figthers. I use beam-beam and missile-beam. Nothing else works efficiently. And with efficient I mean that it's not ressourcefull to use 3 times the firepower the enemy vessel has on my turrets, to take down one of their fighters. Then a drone might 've been a better choice against fighters...

If you can't hit fast fighters but want to hit the with cannons instead of smart missiles or beams - and I understand the need for diversity - just make a turret (or your main weapon, or a manually aimed turret on bigger ships that can't turn towards the fighters very fast) that sprays the cannon-cannon or cannon-pulse or cannon-beam (best because of the 20x max speed) in a 10x10 radius with logic and has a small beam-cannon as main weapon or also logic activated if manually aimed to have some kind of laserpointer. ^^ I don't know if it works right with the current turret positioning, but its the only way I can think of.

Also I want to say: Fighters are meant to not being hit with balastic unguided bullets. Ballistic unguided bullets are for close combat or big object to big object combat. I use cannon-cannon on my fighters if they are meant for dogfights. I've not tried beam-beam jet on fighters.

I've recently read some texts about how realistic space warfare and spacebattleships would look like.

One theory said, that on long ranges, you have to spray your shots to have a higher chance to hit the enemy, because there is no way to calculate the point where a far away target is even with very fast bullets. So a turret-computer would estimate the propabilities of some possible points where the enemy craft could move to in the time the bullet needs to reach the target that is like 10.000 km away. And then fires like 500 bullets at the same time, to hit the craft once.

Because of the high speed bullets reach in space, it does not matter that only one bullet hits. Just think about how a 1.5 radius meteor creates a 50m hole when it impacts earth. Now you just have multiply the speed a bullet gets with like...1000(?), and imagine what happens to a craft of like 100m longside - in space. =) But realistic space combat is a very wide theme, I don't want to sidetrack too much.

 

[Malacodor]

I've recently read some texts about how realistic space warfare and spacebattleships would look like.

One theory said, that on long ranges, you have to spray your shots to have a higher chance to hit the enemy, because there is no way to calculate the point where a far away target is even with very fast bullets. So a turret-computer would estimate the propabilities of some possible points where the enemy craft could move to in the time the bullet needs to reach the target that is like 10.000 km away. And then fires like 500 bullets at the same time, to hit the craft once.

Because of the high speed bullets reach in space, it does not matter that only one bullet hits. Just think about how a 1.5 radius meteor creates a 50m hole when it impacts earth. Now you just have multiply the speed a bullet gets with like...1000(?), and imagine what happens to a craft of like 100m longside - in space. =) But realistic space combat is a very wide theme, I don't want to sidetrack too much.

Realistically, most weapons had an infinite range. Beams would slowly lose their coherence, but not stop at a certain point. Guided missiles would become unguided after using up all their fuel. Only pulses would quickly become so weak, that they could considered having a limited range.

Randomized bullet spread was suggested, but allegedly it would increase network traffic too much.

 

[Lukwan]

Using a target-lead indicator in the HUD maintains the mini-game of still having to steer and retains the skill element. I prefer that approach to any form of aim-assist. I just find aim-assist ruins the RP feel and is indicative of a poorly designed combat mechanic.

 

[Ithirahad]

We need Lecic up in here.

 

[JinM]

I just find aim-assist ruins the RP feel and is indicative of a poorly designed combat mechanic.

Roleplay games are not better with or without aim-assist. In Starmade RP means ships designed against combat-suitability and with many nice deco and interiour spaces. I understand what you try to say, you talk about the atmosphere and the action RP also needs. But it's not a poor combat mechanic if you have the ability to hit a target with cannons that are too far away to aim at. I mean for roleplaying the future in space its unrealistic to have no aim-assisted weapons. :D No, you don't talk about RP, you wanted to point out that you want the action and the shooter feeling to stay.

But I think that comes to the point, that everyone likes different styles of gameplay. OP might like to have some more tactical gameplay and does not want to waste all his attention on aiming at little dots 1,3 km away from his position. And I agree with that. I would like to spend more time on tactical management of my ship, like: how do I position my ship to the enemy, what weapons shall be inactive, how much power do I want to give to shields.

 

[Gonzalo]

I think it would be nice with a little aim assist with cannons.

other solutions could be having the ui crosshair change based on the targets distance to make leading shots easier. star citizen does this quite well

 

[Ithirahad]

In Starmade RP means ships designed against combat-suitability

No.

Full RP-designed ships can - and sometimes do - have respectable firepower. I... thought I'd point that out.

 

[JinM]

No.

Full RP-designed ships can - and sometimes do - have respectable firepower. I... thought I'd point that out.

But that does not change my point, would have been nice to get some answer to my point instead of just picking out some little thing you consider as mistake. Thank you.