Remove Weapon Firing Arcs

[Valiant70]

Yes, this is another balance thread. However, it isn't about weapon linkings and effects.

The simplest improvement would be to get rid of the wide firing arcs and force all mounted weapons to fire straight at the crosshair. This would force larger ships to rely on more vulnerable turrets to have a chance of hitting a small, fast ship that can strafe out of the crosshair faster than the ship can fly the crosshair onto them.

1. This gives small ships a skill-related chance to avoid larger ships' mounted weapons even when the large ship is backpedaling at great speed. (Balance improvement)
   
2. This makes turrets (or fighters) more necessary to deal with small targets, something that many players have wanted for some time. (Meta improvement)
3. This improves the balance of large turrets. A turret must be able to track fast enough to AIM, not just point in the general direction of a ship. (Balance improvement)
4. This eliminates strange looking bullets coming from gun barrels at a 30 degree angle, including those mounted on turrets. (Aesthetics/immersion improvement)
   
5. In my opinion, the flight and gunnery controls would feel more natural. (Control improvement)

Other possible concerns:

• Problem: Ships may use heat-seeking missiles instead of turrets.
  • Possible solution: Make heat-seeking missiles "instant lock" instead of "auto lock" - the entity firing them must point the missile at the target before firing, but need not wait for a lock-on.
• Problem: GRAAAGH! Drone spam!
  • Possible solution: Improve pulse weapons - add visual cues to show when something is within the sphere, and cause damage throughout the sphere's expansion rather than only at the end. This will help large ships to counter fighters/drones that are dumb enough to get that close.
  • Possible solution: Start building carriers.
  • You did want fighters to be effective, right? DEAL WITH IT.

 

[max stripe]

the whole use of heat seakers is fire and forget. they seak out all active heat sources (aka engines)
if you had to aim em that kinda removes the seaker aspect... theyre not seaking anything then just tracking a predetermined target

 

[Valiant70]

the whole use of heat seakers is fire and forget. they seak out all active heat sources (aka engines)
if you had to aim em that kinda removes the seaker aspect... theyre not seaking anything then just tracking a predetermined target

Having to point something at the enemy opens up possibilities for balancing. The missiles would still have advantages:

1. No waiting for a lock-on. Just get the enemy in a generous circle and fire.
2. Multiple missiles that spread slightly before arcing toward the target - harder for fighters or turrets to shoot down.

And would retain their current disadvantage: No friend/foe check. If you aren't careful you could fire on a friendly. Pulling the trigger with both friend and foe in the target circle is a bad idea!

Heat-seekers are kind of a side topic anyway. What do you think of the main suggestion, removing firing arcs?

 

[max stripe]

some servers have docked entity limits and this would force you to devote more entities to turrets rather than to drones if you wish to handle hostiles effectively
either that or devote more space on board to thrusters so you can swing the ship around faster

 

[Valiant70]

some servers have docked entity limits and this would force you to devote more entities to turrets rather than to drones if you wish to handle hostiles effectively
either that or devote more space on board to thrusters so you can swing the ship around faster

Some such servers may need to increase their cap if it becomes an issue, or their players will be forced to fly smaller ships and work in groups. That's a server-specific choice though.

 

[Panpiper]

While I would like to see this sort of thing ideally, sadly in implementation it runs directly counter to what we require at least at the moment to avoid server lag. We need to reduce turret count and reduce ship spam. IMO, implementing changes which encourage greater reliance on turrets or otherwise greater numbers of smaller ships, is something that will have to wait till Schine figures out how to massively reduce the server load caused by such.

 

[Amadeus]

I think your reasoning behind this is very well thought out: +1

I also think that this may help with the ai spinning so much. Instead of spinning to target an entity, this suggestion may help with them actually seeking out targets and utilyzing more natural movement.

 

[nightrune]

Actually.. it would be cool if different weapons had different gimble.

Quick examples would be cannons having very little gimble, and beams having a lot. Thus giving more of a reason to use beams instead of the high punch cannons. Could be neat to have the secondaries adjust it as well.

 

[Valiant70]

While I would like to see this sort of thing ideally, sadly in implementation it runs directly counter to what we require at least at the moment to avoid server lag. We need to reduce turret count and reduce ship spam. IMO, implementing changes which encourage greater reliance on turrets or otherwise greater numbers of smaller ships, is something that will have to wait till Schine figures out how to massively reduce the server load caused by such.

Turrets are already much better optimized than they were when rails first came out. If it's not enough, servers may choose to limit turrets to prevent lag. If the limits become a hindrance, players are likely to resort to using more fighter drones and escort ships alongside larger ships. In any case, the new meta will probably be better.

 

[Jojomo]

3. This improves the balance of large turrets. A turret must be able to track fast enough to AIM, not just point in the general direction of a ship. (Balance improvement)

I like this point, a lot. Ship maneuverability should really help avoid fire, especially from large turrets.

 

[Valiant70]

I like this point, a lot. Ship maneuverability should really help avoid fire, especially from large turrets.

This is in fact the main reason larger ships are so extremely powerful in Starmade, and have been all along. This is a change that should have been made early on.

 

[kiddan]

+1

AI ships shouldn't be much of a problem with this change, either. As better maneuvering skills are planned for them, they won't need the firing arcs to properly hit a target.

Plus cannons with firing arcs are something less than fiction.

 

[godmars]

If firing arcs are removed rotational speed needs a buff so it doesn't drop off so quickly on the low end else this will get frustrating fast

 

[nightrune]

If firing arcs are removed rotational speed needs a buff so it doesn't drop off so quickly on the low end else this will get frustrating fast

You don't want a death spiral where no one can hit each other?! Doesn't that sound fun!

 

[Valiant70]

If firing arcs are removed rotational speed needs a buff so it doesn't drop off so quickly on the low end else this will get frustrating fast

You don't want a death spiral where no one can hit each other?! Doesn't that sound fun!

Full reverse, Chewy. Lock in the auxiliary power!

 

[Gandrac]

Having to point something at the enemy opens up possibilities for balancing. The missiles would still have advantages:

1. No waiting for a lock-on. Just get the enemy in a generous circle and fire.
2. Multiple missiles that spread slightly before arcing toward the target - harder for fighters or turrets to shoot down.

And would retain their current disadvantage: No friend/foe check. If you aren't careful you could fire on a friendly. Pulling the trigger with both friend and foe in the target circle is a bad idea!

Heat-seekers are kind of a side topic anyway. What do you think of the main suggestion, removing firing arcs?

I really like this approach. For the No friend/foe disadvantage to still have some impact, the target circle would need to be enormous tho.. which wouldn't be a bad thing i guess.

To further balance Heatseekers, what about a short seeking period before they become Dumbfire Missiles?
This way, they would still be a threat/deterant for close crafts but wouldn't be able to replace long-range Guided Missiles.

 

[Edymnion]

If anything, I'd like to see weapons with a larger firing arc so that fixed turrets are more useful.

 

[sayerulz]

If anything, I'd like to see weapons with a larger firing arc so that fixed turrets are more useful.

What if you could allocate percentages of the total firing arc to certain axis, a bit like thrusters. A one-axis turret only needs gun elevation after all.

 

[Valiant70]

To further balance Heatseekers, what about a short seeking period before they become Dumbfire Missiles?
This way, they would still be a threat/deterant for close crafts but wouldn't be able to replace long-range Guided Missiles.

Beam secondary gives additional range as well as lock-on. Heat-seekers have no such advantage and thus the two types would have separate roles.

If anything, I'd like to see weapons with a larger firing arc so that fixed turrets are more useful.

What if you could allocate percentages of the total firing arc to certain axis, a bit like thrusters. A one-axis turret only needs gun elevation after all.

Retaining any arc more than a degree or two is a poor idea for the reasons outlined in the OP. For maneuvers/dodging to work as a real defense, which seems desirable, a ship or turret's ability to aim its weapons should be inversely proportional to its size to encourage ships to engage targets of similar or larger size. This is a concept that has had various incarnations across many space games for a very long time, and it works well in general.

I'm not sure what the appeal of a fixed turret is as opposed to an inset movable turret. Fixed turrets are easier to make and less balanced I guess?

 

[Tydeth]

I'm not sure what the appeal of a fixed turret is as opposed to an inset movable turret. Fixed turrets are easier to make and less balanced I guess?

From what I understand, fixed turrets:

* Require only 1 entity, rather than 2 for a fully rotating one (less lag)
* Sit on Rail Basics instead of turret rails, thus not moving and not checking for collisions (less lag)
* Only shoot at what's in front of them, rather than try to turn and hit the mothership because its target is on the other side (AI = dumb)
* Work best if configured to fire at selected target, so they don't try to hit a fighter when you want them shooting that battleship (AI = dumb)

Because of the above, you can have fixed turrets for broadsides and fore guns, and by switching targets, have each set fire only on the targets they can hit. Also with the fore guns: being able to fire multiple weapon types simultaneously with some degree of accuracy, which you cannot do with the hotbar (1 at a time) or logic (no accuracy). Granted, you can do that with regular turrets set to Fire @ Target as well, but fixed allows you to inset the thing almost completely in the hull of your ship while enjoying the reduced lag of 1 entity and 0 collision checks while docked.