Could Fighters Get a Buff?

[Gasboy]

I feel that some more weapon balancing needs yet to occur. It feels like I need to build some pretty massive weapons to have any real impact on advanced armor or shields. Add this to the changes to the rail system that was added, and turrets end up being ridiculous in size. When I build anything presently, it is the turret size that determines the scale of the ship, and I find it hard to build anything that could be considered a "frigate," let alone a fighter.

When I'm making original ships, this isn't necessarily a problem, but I challenge anyone to find images of spacecraft with turrets that are 25% or more of the size of the ship's hull. I'm used to seeing turrets dot the hull of ships in sci-fi art, not completely dominate their structure. Even my original ships draw inspiration from the artwork and design of others, and I'd like to see weapons (or defenses) reflect popular opinion of scale in this regard.

The problem is not the weapon systems. The problem is that some people tend to build gigantic ships. Gigantism is the issue. As it is right now, the only way to curb this is at the server admin level. And outright banning gigantic ships isn't the right way to do it. You have to have some structure in that. Give players a reason to want to follow a stricter guideline for building ships.

As it is right now, StarMade is at the level of ship combat equivalent to Pearl Harbour: A relatively modest force of fighters and minisubs can lay waste to several battleships. Had the entire port been alert and ready, chances are Pearl Harbour would have still been a military success, the Japanese would have lost a good chunk of aircraft along with sinking several US battleships.

Buffing the fighters has to be done carefully. You don't want a lone fighter to have the ability to sink a capital ship in one go. See Exocet missiles and AGM-86s (up to 150kt nuke).
[doublepost=1474589657,1474589522][/doublepost]Also. Death Star.

 

[Madman198237]

To shorten this to its basis: Fighters do not need a buff. Rather, AI needs a revamp, fleets need a revamp, shipyards need a revamp, you get my point. We need some basic fixes for certain parts of the game before smaller vessels truly do fulfill their full purpose.

Once AI gets the ability to use its speed and maneuverability, lightweight vessels will probably tend to lose some armor and shielding. The Japanese Zero was a highly successful fighter because it outmaneuvered its enemies. It failed, ultimately, because as the US sank carrier task force after task force, Japan ran out of good pilots. Though the Americans show the other side---American fighters were slower, but they packed a punch and could take damage that would take down several Zeroes.

The Death Star was a plot-driven massacre of epic proportions. Because now, Luke I-Wanna-Be-A-Jedi can use the Force to....steer extremely fast projectiles into a 90-degree turn....down the Tunnel Of Perfectly Straight Doom, and into the Reactor of Instability? What the what?

 

[Gasboy]

The Death Star was a plot-driven massacre of epic proportions. Because now, Luke I-Wanna-Be-A-Jedi can use the Force to....steer extremely fast projectiles into a 90-degree turn....down the Tunnel Of Perfectly Straight Doom, and into the Reactor of Instability? What the what?

You know, when I first saw the original Star Wars movies, plots and plot holes weren't first and foremost on my mind.

 

[Malacodor]

I think increasing the power, power consumption, and material cost of weapons across the board is all that's really needed there.

What about mass? Should it be increased as well?

As it is right now, StarMade is at the level of ship combat equivalent to Pearl Harbour: A relatively modest force of fighters and minisubs can lay waste to several battleships. Had the entire port been alert and ready, chances are Pearl Harbour would have still been a military success, the Japanese would have lost a good chunk of aircraft along with sinking several US battleships.

Buffing the fighters has to be done carefully. You don't want a lone fighter to have the ability to sink a capital ship in one go. See Exocet missiles and AGM-86s (up to 150kt nuke).

Also. Death Star.

StarMade isn't Star Wars. StarMade isn't reality. Those comparisons don't make much sense.

 

[sayerulz]

Yes, I suppose the mass of weapons should be increased as well.

 

[Madman198237]

Now I gotta ask....what was?

EDIT: This is Gasboy.

 

[Gasboy]

What about mass? Should it be increased as well?


StarMade isn't Star Wars. StarMade isn't reality. Those comparisons don't make much sense.

My reference to the Death Star is a sci-fi ship who's mass of weaponry is more than 25% of a ship.

Yeah, StarMade isn't reality, I get that. But the comparison is apt. Right now, about 40% worth of mass of a big ship, in fighters, can take out that big ship. The weapons are essentially Pearl Harbour era weapons. That's the comparison. If you try to buff small attack ships, you may end up in a situation where a single dinky ship could take out a capital ship, which is a comparison to the weapons of today, a single fighter or bomber could sink an aircraft carrier, at least the weapons are capable of it.
[doublepost=1474590713,1474590600][/doublepost]

Now I gotta ask....what was?

EDIT: This is Gasboy.

Since I was 7 at the time? I believe it was, "WHoaaaaaaaa!"

 

[Malacodor]

I think increasing the power, power consumption, and material cost of weapons across the board is all that's really needed there.

Yes, I suppose the mass of weapons should be increased as well.

I'm not sure about this. I don't see any downsides besides the workload for Schine, but the offensive overdrive effect has a very similar effect. Making the maximum turn rate of a turret dependent on its size could encourage players to use more overdrive on turrets.

 

[Gasboy]

I'm not sure about this. I don't see any downsides besides the workload for Schine, but the offensive overdrive effect has a very similar effect. Making the maximum turn rate of a turret dependent on its size could encourage players to use more overdrive on turrets.

Or they use more rail mass enhancers. Else there's no point of having rail mass enhancers.

 

[MrFURB]

There are options in the blockbehavior.cfg for turret turn rate. Three I believe, all dependent on the turret's mass. Perhaps these could be modified to prefer lower mass, making the likes of close-in fightercraft able to keep out of the arc of fire for large weapons?

 

[sayerulz]

Does mass not already slow down turrets turn rate? I would have thought that 5k block uber-cannons not being able to track fighters would just be common sense.

 

[Madman198237]

The point is, yes, you can carry weapons capable of utterly annihilating a massively superior enemy vessel.....but you must hit well for them to be effective. Just look at Pearl Harbor? After several waves, many battleships sank....to be raised a few months or a year or so later. They weren't destroyed. The only one that was? The one whose ammunition bunker took a direct hit (You gotta remember, this is basically the same effect as you parking a second battleship, directly over the target, and then firing at naval-point-blank range into the other battleship [Albeit with a relatively poor muzzle velocity], since the Japanese were dropping 16-in battleship shells with fins) from a 16in armor-piercing shell.

And then, of course, you must dodge the enemies' mass of extremely effective fire. Basically, no battleship could defeat an aircraft carrier on its own (Provided they start outside the BB's range), but it would be capable of disabling a lot of aircraft first.


But that's beside the point. Fighters need no buffs, as I said. AI needs the buff.

 

[sayerulz]

The point is, yes, you can carry weapons capable of utterly annihilating a massively superior enemy vessel.....but you must hit well for them to be effective. Just look at Pearl Harbor? After several waves, many battleships sank....to be raised a few months or a year or so later. They weren't destroyed. The only one that was? The one whose ammunition bunker took a direct hit (You gotta remember, this is basically the same effect as you parking a second battleship, directly over the target, and then firing at naval-point-blank range into the other battleship [Albeit with a relatively poor muzzle velocity], since the Japanese were dropping 16-in battleship shells with fins) from a 16in armor-piercing shell.

And then, of course, you must dodge the enemies' mass of extremely effective fire. Basically, no battleship could defeat an aircraft carrier on its own (Provided they start outside the BB's range), but it would be capable of disabling a lot of aircraft first.


But that's beside the point. Fighters need no buffs, as I said. AI needs the buff.

Which brings to light another important difference between space and naval combat: space ships can't sink. A hull breach can decompress sections, but that will only be killing crew in that section (and if your ship has half-decent armor, explosive decompression won't be causing too much damage). With a naval ship, lots of hull breaches will sink the whole ship, eventually crushing even bulkheads that are still secure.

 

[Madman198237]

Only breaches that cannot be controlled, but you're right. In space, one leak does not a doomed ship make. Unless, of course, that leak is in the form of a hole straight through the vessel....

 

[kingreol]

the thread turned into real world science quiz. know your nuclear physics and world war 2 history :P anywho quote from the latest patch

"(Smaller ships didn’t have docked power reactors to begin with. We have other systems planned that will affect them.)"

this got me curious the other day.....

 

[Gasboy]

Only breaches that cannot be controlled, but you're right. In space, one leak does not a doomed ship make. Unless, of course, that leak is in the form of a hole straight through the vessel....

Oh, things like hydrogen leaks, radiation leaks, air-leaks... one leak can doom a ship if left unchecked, and sometimes that happens during battle. :P
[doublepost=1474596068,1474596034][/doublepost]

the thread turned into real world science quiz. know your nuclear physics and world war 2 history :p anywho quote from the latest patch

"(Smaller ships didn’t have docked power reactors to begin with. We have other systems planned that will affect them.)"

this got me curious the other day.....

Yes, this got me curious as well. I can't wait to see what it is.

 

[sayerulz]

Some form of ammo perhaps? Most useful in small vessels?

 

[StarWars1981]

Oooh, now you've got me interested. I want to see those, too ... what've they got up their sleeves now?
I think, mostly, it's the AI portion that needs a revamp. No, you cannot build a 100-block fighter and have it kill anything but somewhat larger fighters; however, you CAN build a 2000 block fighter en masse to destroy nearly everything. The benefit here is firepower: Reload Times. The larger vessel's weapons all have reload times, as do the smaller vessels'; however, there are more weapons on the smaller vessels: because they do not have to switch targets. All their forward-firing weapons can be in use, whereas the main ship only brings 1-2 online to destroy each target (perhaps more if the size difference is not major). Plus turrets; but they're weak spots and can be eliminated too easily to rely upon, at least in tough melees.
To make it simpler than that mess: The smaller ships do not have to switch targets to continue dealing effective damage to the opposing force, because they have one (or fewer, at least) targets, whereas this larger ship has to maneuver quick enough to get another one in its sights, and then knock it down.

And the AI: once that's improved, and fighters/bombers/light stuff strafes, using maneuverability to fly by, close-in, and then pull back and circle ... once they MOVE to the best of their abilities, or prioritize hostile vessels based on agility and threat to themselves (i.e. battleship bags frigate before heavy cruiser, because the frigate is going to flank out of range faster) ... now we're talking. I'd love to see preprogrammed maneuvers- look up the Immelmann, or any other, more useful aerial dogfight moves. Probably not useful in space, but you can see how some sort of sideslipping move might help AI, or reversing momentum and velocity might give them an upper hand by throwing an opponent's aim. Perhaps give their fire-control a "Predictor" aspect: it predicts the opponent's flight path and must "Observe" and "Calculate" changes before reengaging on new vectors. Higher AI levels could do this faster and better, getting more accuracy faster than low AI levels. The most brutal modes can flip their ships around like pros and knock your best combat maneuvers into an uncontrolled explodey mess of a flight path.

 

[DrTarDIS]

... in space combat is more about strafe-motion than close-retreat-repeat. If the "AI" just altered it's thrust vector to relative lateral motion based on the distance between minimum and maximum effective range of it's weaponry to-target it would be nice. SO they didn't just approach and "sit there" but instead at least did some maneuvers.

1. Not in range
   • Accelerate towards target
2. in range closed to 95% of max range
   • pew-pew
     
   • convert 5% thrust vector into strafe motion thrust
3. closed to 25% of max range (Ie, 3/4 the way "into" the fire basket)
   • pew pew
   • convert 75% thrust vector into strafe motion thrust

 

[Gasboy]

... in space combat is more about strafe-motion than close-retreat-repeat. If the "AI" just altered it's thrust vector to relative lateral motion based on the distance between minimum and maximum effective range of it's weaponry to-target it would be nice. SO they didn't just approach and "sit there" but instead at least did some maneuvers.

1. Not in range
   • Accelerate towards target
2. in range closed to 95% of max range
   • pew-pew
     
   • convert 5% thrust vector into strafe motion thrust
3. closed to 25% of max range (Ie, 3/4 the way "into" the fire basket)
   • pew pew
   • convert 75% thrust vector into strafe motion thrust

That would do nicely.