Remove Weapon Firing Arcs

[MaartenAll]

Could you elaborate a little? It sounds interesting, but I didn't get the full point you were making.

it's hard to explain.
If you fire right in feont of you, the weapon will fire at a point right in front in an angle of 90 degrees at a point on an infnite distance. The target will always be in between the fire point and the point the weapon is shooting at, so the distance between your ship and the target doesn't matter. However, if the weapon would fire at the target cross, the distance between the target and your ship would influence the angle the projectile makes to hit the target.
for example: if the target is 100 m away and there are ten blocks between the center of your ship and the output of the weapon, the weapon would have to shoot at an angle of tangens 10° to hit the target. If the game would have to calculate that angle everytime you shoot, this would result into severe lag for any rapid fire weapons.
like I said, its hard to explain

 

[Ithirahad]

I just had an idea regarding this. In essence, gimbaling your weapons is something that's realistic. However, being able to gimbal enough to arc a shot 30° on a 100m long gun isn't. So here's something that I think might be worth thinking about. You can gimbal your gun relative to how long or wide it is. That means that you'll be able to gimbal your shot on a 10m long by 1m wide by 2m high gun about 0.1 radians sideways and about 0.2 radians upwards for example. (arctan of the height or width over the length)

Of course, I'm not sure this should be a feature, but it's rather interesting. If heightening the game's realism is what you're going for, this might be the best approach.

Changing weapon stats based on shape generally is not considered a very good idea, as not every ship can fit a weapon that's of the right shape to do what you want it to do.

 

[Jojomo]

Changing weapon stats based on shape generally is not considered a very good idea, as not every ship can fit a weapon that's of the right shape to do what you want it to do.

I know it's not a possibility, and only marginally on topic, but I think I'd really like weapon stats to change with shape, e.g. make them longer for more range, wider for more damage, etc., along those lines.
The fact that some ships wouldn't be able to fit some weapons they desired would be a positive not a negative! (Speaking for myself)

 

[gamesaucer]

Changing weapon stats based on shape generally is not considered a very good idea, as not every ship can fit a weapon that's of the right shape to do what you want it to do.

I'm with jojomo here, you make it sound positive. This could create more variety in ship types.
That said, I wasn't suggesting it as a feature, I was mostly just sharing this out of interest and as an answer to the people complaining that the current gimbal mechanic isn't realistic.

 

[Kelpaz]

Removing arcs would be useless as most anti fighter cruisers use turrets to deal with them.
Instead of trying to nerf everything how about buffing ship thrust to a fun level again.

Why do so many try to come up with ways to nerf larger ships "to make small ship better" That is just narrow minded.
I build ships of all sizes and I would like to see an overall maneuverability boost that would benefit all the ships not just the small end.

I would like however to have an option to turn of arcs for individual ships as aiming with fighters while turning with the mouse is nearly impossible.

 

[Ithirahad]

I'm with jojomo here, you make it sound positive. This could create more variety in ship types.

No, it would create more restriction in what a given weapon could look like. The hovering ball turrets I use for multiple applications, including PD and long-range cannons, would not be as efficient any more (they're already inefficient, actually, and this would make things worse)... Neither would typical barrel-shaped turrets based on guns in real life or Sci-Fi.

Sure, you can turn it around and say that "not every ship can fit a weapon of a given type" is a good thing, but only if you assume that nobody is ever going to want to build a ship that looks a certain way and has weapons that work a certain way, which may not agree with whatever arbitrary shapes you define for certain characteristics.

 

[Nickizzy]

No, it would create more restriction in what a given weapon could look like. The hovering ball turrets I use for multiple applications, including PD and long-range cannons, would not be as efficient any more, neither would typical barrel-shaped turrets based on guns in real life or Sci-Fi.

Sure, you can turn it around and say that "not every ship can fit a weapon of a given type" is a good thing, but only if you assume that nobody is ever going to want to build a ship that looks a certain way and has weapons that work a certain way, which may not agree with whatever arbitrary shapes you define for certain characteristics.

Besides the fact that most ships don't have a solid clump of weapon mods in the front of their ship.

 

[apelsinsaft]

The suggestion to remove all weapon firing arcs makes too much sense. The only reason you wouldn't want this to be a thing is if you're overly protective about your fifty titan builds now becoming slightly less overpowered, or if you have a poor framerate and need the gimbal aiming to hit anything regardless of your ship size.

Just to see if i got this right:
Pros:

• More variety of viable ships
• More variety of viable fighting style
• More skill involved in fighting
• More good

Cons:

• Salty titan manufacturers
  
• Good framerate and connection plays a bigger part in getting hits on enemies, connection issues and server lag -> frustration
• People might start relying on turrets/drones a little too much since they can't hit things worth a damn -> lag

Just a side note, this change should probably not apply to mining beams, support beams (shield/energy transfer, astrotech) and docking/activation beams or those would be extremely painful to use.

it's hard to explain.
If you fire right in feont of you, the weapon will fire at a point right in front in an angle of 90 degrees at a point on an infnite distance. The target will always be in between the fire point and the point the weapon is shooting at, so the distance between your ship and the target doesn't matter. However, if the weapon would fire at the target cross, the distance between the target and your ship would influence the angle the projectile makes to hit the target.
for example: if the target is 100 m away and there are ten blocks between the center of your ship and the output of the weapon, the weapon would have to shoot at an angle of tangens 10° to hit the target. If the game would have to calculate that angle everytime you shoot, this would result into severe lag for any rapid fire weapons.
like I said, its hard to explain

The game already does this. In fact it could do it 10 times for every time a rapid fire cannon fires on 10 ships with 10 rapid firing cannons each in 10 different sectors and it wouldn't impact performance that much. Math is easy for computers.

Besides wasn't the suggestion to make weapons NOT fire at the crosshair?

 

[MaartenAll]

The suggestion to remove all weapon firing arcs makes too much sense. The only reason you wouldn't want this to be a thing is if you're overly protective about your fifty titan builds now becoming slightly less overpowered, or if you have a poor framerate and need the gimbal aiming to hit anything regardless of your ship size.

Just to see if i got this right:
Pros:

• More variety of viable ships
• More variety of viable fighting style
• More skill involved in fighting
• More good

Cons:

• Salty titan manufacturers
  
• Good framerate and connection plays a bigger part in getting hits on enemies, connection issues and server lag -> frustration
• People might start relying on turrets/drones a little too much since they can't hit things worth a damn -> lag

Just a side note, this change should probably not apply to mining beams, support beams (shield/energy transfer, astrotech) and docking/activation beams or those would be extremely painful to use.


The game already does this. In fact it could do it 10 times for every time a rapid fire cannon fires on 10 ships with 10 rapid firing cannons each in 10 different sectors and it wouldn't impact performance that much. Math is easy for computers.

Besides wasn't the suggestion to make weapons NOT fire at the crosshair?

Both of those are possible, must have read it incorrectly.

 

[Kelpaz]

Just to see if i got this right:
Pros:

• More variety of viable ships
• More variety of viable fighting style
• More skill involved in fighting
• More good

Cons:

• Salty titan manufacturers
  
• Good framerate and connection plays a bigger part in getting hits on enemies, connection issues and server lag -> frustration
• People might start relying on turrets/drones a little too much since they can't hit things worth a damn -> lag

Titans can rely solely on turrets which makes the removal of arcs moot, infact it might be detrimental to other ship classes.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Don't really know whether the arcs should be removed entirely, but they definitely need to be toned down.

 

[apelsinsaft]

Titans can rely solely on turrets which makes the removal of arcs moot, infact it might be detrimental to other ship classes.

It WOULD however make said turrets more reliant on being able to accurately track targets, rather than just aiming into a 90 degree cone towards the target and then letting the gimbal aim do the rest. Bigger turrets turn slower, just like bigger ships turn slower, so it makes sense all the way up and down. The thing here is it wouldn't really impact your ability to hit ships your size or bigger, but it would impact your ability to hit ships SMALLER than you, which is how it should be. Now that we have properly functioning fleets, turrets and drones (to some extent) i think it would be the perfect opportunity to get rid of firing arcs for weapons.

 

[Raisinbat]

The difference is that logic fired weapons other than missile/missile aren't worth using as is, even on a fighter.

Can/beam has twice the projectile speed = you need to lead by half as much, it is by far the best manual cannon setup.

Let beams preserve their firing arcs; remove it (or drastically reduce it) from other weapons.

Maybe anything with a beam secondary system gets a small firing arc as well? It'd kind of fit the whole "sniper" idea...

Can't we have just differential firing arcs for different weapons? Beams have 90°, missiles 40°, cannons 30°, pulses straight?

And secondaries give you difference too. Beam reduces it to 75%, missile increases it to 150%.

If we need to we can add a new tertiary effect, gimbal modules, that increase it by up too 200% or 160°. High power usage or reduced damage or range.

Why on earth would you want one of the most overpowered weapons against fighters to have the highest arc? What is the reasoning here? Realism? If anything beams should have the lowest since they're the best at exploiting it.

Bigger turrets turn slower

Nope, they just use more mass enhancers.

 

[Nickizzy]

Why on earth would you want one of the most overpowered weapons against fighters to have the highest arc? What is the reasoning here? Realism? If anything beams should have the lowest since they're the best at exploiting it.

90° may seem like a lot, but it's actually just >. If we need to we can do checks and balances. The post was more about the idea if simply changing firing arcs and not about specific numbers.

 

[Bladeriker]

From what I see there is a presumption that (Cannons) are ballistic and not energy based and is partly behind the logic that they need to have their firing arcs removed. Where as I have looked at cannons as more of a Plasma/energy weapon, and thus a vectoring nozzle/energy director makes sense for the firing arcs. Also if a player is getting one shot out by a deck gun on a ship, they picked a wrong fight to begin with.

This entire suggestion boils down to wanting a small craft (Fighter) to be able to kill a Battleship (Titan). Simply put for a single small craft to have a chance against a battleship it would have to get extremely lucky. Where as many small ships are what is called for to down a much larger craft.

 

[Jojomo]

This entire suggestion boils down to wanting a small craft (Fighter) to be able to kill a Battleship (Titan).

I'm not the OP, but I very much doubt this is the case. I think there are very, very few people who think a fighter should be able to take out a battleship or titan.
Of course if they have enough fighters to match the titan's mass, then yes, they should have a roughly even chance....

 

[Valiant70]

This is already possible. Out turning heavier ships has always been possible. All this will do is push players to use more and more powerful turrets. Your small ships will stand even less of a chance then.

Currently, all you can do is get somewhere that is not in front of the enemy. Barrel rolls, dodging, etc. are meaningless as the enemy's aim adjusts instantly. The best you can hope for is that the enemy's cannons fire slow enough projectiles that you can maneuver to be somewhere else by the time the projectiles reach your location.

I'd rather face any number of big turrets than a pinpoint-accurate superlaser. I'd have a few more seconds to get away, OR the ship would have to sacrifice internal systems or maneuverability to carry more turrets. Either outcome is acceptable. Superlasers are for killing Admiral Akbar's cruiser, not for hitting the Millennium Falcon. (See Battle of Endor if you don't get the Star Wars reference).

Er... I have seen and responded to a LOT of threads and complaints from people complaining about their useless small ships. Absolutely every one of them was due to them not being able to pack enough punch in the weapons carried by such ships. Not a single one of them, not one ever, even mentioned them being 'too vulnerable' to focused fire. If the rationale for your suggestion is based on this, then you are arguing for a game change to fix a problem that virtually no one thinks is a problem.

This is a new angle on an old problem which is nearly fixed now (see the HP update) and needs one final step and minor tweaking of stats thereafter. Small ships don't need as much firepower because extremely large ships have an HP penalty. However, the penalty is not so severe as to cripple large ships or even make them significantly less powerful. Docked reactors are no longer a thing by default, so power generation is balanced by a risk-reward system. Defense is not yet balanced. Removing firing arcs will do that and the problem will no longer exist. (Also, your turrets will look better when they turn on a target and open fire because they won't start shooting stuff 30-40 degrees out of line with the barrel.)

This entire suggestion boils down to wanting a small craft (Fighter) to be able to kill a Battleship (Titan).

Nope. You're in the wrong game, Luke Skywalker. This is about balancing the whole range of ship sizes and giving all sizes a role in a large-scale battle. In other words, if you have a battleship and no escorts, you run the risk of having your turrets blown of and then being nibbled to death. You need a fighter wing in your hangar or some destroyer escorts by your side. This is already true to some degree, but the change to weapon aim will complete the effect because if the attacking ships are small enough, your battleship will have to be VERY lucky to hit any with its forward guns whereas it stands a chance now even without any turrets left. This does NOT mean the battleship will be destroyed in all cases, but it will be forced to retreat once its turrets are gone. Big ships will remain powerful, but without escorts they will have a greater liability than they currently do, which is as it should be.

 

[Groovrider]

Currently, all you can do is get somewhere that is not in front of the enemy. Barrel rolls, dodging, etc. are meaningless as the enemy's aim adjusts instantly. The best you can hope for is that the enemy's cannons fire slow enough projectiles that you can maneuver to be somewhere else by the time the projectiles reach your location.

I'd rather face any number of big turrets than a pinpoint-accurate superlaser. I'd have a few more seconds to get away, OR the ship would have to sacrifice internal systems or maneuverability to carry more turrets. Either outcome is acceptable. Superlasers are for killing Admiral Akbar's cruiser, not for hitting the Millennium Falcon. (See Battle of Endor if you don't get the Star Wars reference).

2 things: The Barrel Roll as you say was never used to avoid enemy fire during terrestrial combat as far as I can tell. The second is: me and a friend of mine tried this on night on our MP server. I was in a 40k prototype w/superlaser and he was in a 15k frigate fully jammed. We limited the test to hull weapons only and no heatseekers. He couldn't get through my defenses and I couldn't lay a finger on him as there was no missile lock and danced around me making me look foolish.

 

[Jojomo]

2 things: The Barrel Roll as you say was never used to avoid enemy fire during terrestrial combat as far as I can tell.

Yes, that was only ever a thing in some really terrible arcade games.
I'm not a pilot, military or otherwise, I'm just a flight sim enthusiast, but dogfighting in any decent sim will quickly show you that barrel rolls aren't used for dodging.

 

[Valiant70]

Yes, that was only ever a thing in some really terrible arcade games.
I'm not a pilot, military or otherwise, I'm just a flight sim enthusiast, but dogfighting in any decent sim will quickly show you that barrel rolls aren't used for dodging.

I'm not talking about rolling in place. I was thinking of a fast spiral maneuver I used to use in Rogue Leader (hold roll trigger, pull up and roll). Barrel roll may not be the right term.