Power Reactors + Heat + Weapons = End of Gigantism?

[Edymnion]

One of the things that really came to mind with all of this.

If bigger weapon arrays produce a lot more heat as they get larger, that would be a very good downward pressure on weapon array sizes. If that means smaller weapons become more of the norm, less space would be needed to dedicate to them, and to supporting them. Which means smaller ships.

And smaller weapon arrays (and by that I mean less damage output) means less shielding is needed (again leading to smaller ships), and armor becomes more viable.

The game would gain a lot more in the terms of creative ship designs as opposed to just nifty hull designs, and we'd gain a lot of downward pressures on ship size that don't FEEL like arbitrary size limiters.

Which could be the nail in the coffin of "Biggest ship always wins".

 

[NeonSturm]

I think there is a difference between a ship that has

1. 6 turrets which occupy 80% of the visible surface
2. 6 turrets which occupy 20% of the visible surface

Because weapons/hull ratio shifted
​

But I do NOT think it will make a difference like this:

Now we call power heat and calculate it in reverse.
Maybe we should stop building capital ships bigger than a fighter?​

 

[Groovrider]

It won't end gigantism. Powerful ship will just be smaller or identically sized ships will have more (smaller) turrets.

 

[Kelpaz]

Currently the problem is that everything requires too many blocks to be effective.
Weapons have to have a certain size before they are even viable and that entry size in my opinion is too much.
Smaller weapons you say? Have you ever fired at advanced armor with the barest of minimum weapon systems, you would find your ship only scratching or denting the hull barely which is why my smallest ships have to be 90% gun just to be viable to destroy a few blocks at a time with already high power demands.

Giant ships can still be taken out by several smaller ships right now so the problem of giant ships being op doesn't really exist, but if every weapon now had to be weaker we might end up having ships deal little to no damage whatsoever if it takes too much heat.

Also capital ships are a thing Schema has planned systems for, don't think for a moment he'll only want everyone to build tiny ships.

 

[NeonSturm]

I thought more …

What if chambers are added to weapons and that you have 2 choices:
Small – Big..
...Easy – Complex
Fighters kill small turrets – Bombers kill large turrets.

A carrier can have:
Many small turrets – Few Big turrets....
Many small reactors – Few Big reactors....
​

You could still build a carrier with simple reactors,

but your turret or system cannot be bigger than your reactor …

… meaning that fighters can kill it more easily.

​

For thrusters, many small could have a lower acceleration for big ships but same top speed.

 

[AtraUnam]

Waffles are the hard counter too all size based weapon penalties.

 

[NeonSturm]

New Waffles are the hard counter too all size based weapon penalties.

That is why you don't *just penalize* size.

If you penalize size, it should have another advantage you really really want.​

 

[DrTarDIS]

One of the things that really came to mind with all of this.

If bigger weapon arrays produce a lot more heat as they get larger, that would be a very good downward pressure on weapon array sizes. If that means smaller weapons become more of the norm, less space would be needed to dedicate to them, and to supporting them. Which means smaller ships.

And smaller weapon arrays (and by that I mean less damage output) means less shielding is needed (again leading to smaller ships), and armor becomes more viable.

The game would gain a lot more in the terms of creative ship designs as opposed to just nifty hull designs, and we'd gain a lot of downward pressures on ship size that don't FEEL like arbitrary size limiters.

Which could be the nail in the coffin of "Biggest ship always wins".

I persoanlly think "all else being equil, bigger SHOULD win" is just realistic, even somewhat favorable. The "penalty curves" constantly being applied to lager entities might seem like a good idea, until you run into an equivalent-mass optimized-drone-swarm. Do yourself a favor and go to a sector with an ACTIVE 100k block ship, and then go to a sector with 100 ACTIVE 1k block ships. Tell me which one is the lag-bomb.

The very balance systems we currently have cause, by their very solutions, imbalance AND lag IMHO.

Linear heat:damage would be a good thing, Exponential Damage:blocks would be a good thing. Exponential heat:damage would be a BAD thing.

 

[Edymnion]

It is more realistic, but realistically speaking there are also upper limits on realistic weapon size.

Back in WWII the machine guns required constant cooling to keep from overheating while firing. The british used to make their tea on the guns they got so hot.
[doublepost=1487075370,1487073859][/doublepost]

Currently the problem is that everything requires too many blocks to be effective.
Weapons have to have a certain size before they are even viable and that entry size in my opinion is too much.
Smaller weapons you say? Have you ever fired at advanced armor with the barest of minimum weapon systems, you would find your ship only scratching or denting the hull barely which is why my smallest ships have to be 90% gun just to be viable to destroy a few blocks at a time with already high power demands.

Well, in all fairness, that is a very skewed view of what should be minimal effectiveness.

You are basing minimum size on what it takes to blow through fully protected advanced armor? The more realistic default should be against plain basic hull. The entire idea of armor is that it stops attacks. Armor *SHOULD* take multiple hits to tear through. Advanced armor *SHOULD* be damned formidable.

Just because you think every hit has to punch through the heaviest of armor every single time doesn't mean thats the way it should be, its just the way the metagame currently stands.

 

[Scypio]

As long as you can't manage AI ships/fleets decently building bigger will always be better than building twice the same ship.

 

[Ghent96]

As long as you can't manage AI ships/fleets decently building bigger will always be better than building twice the same ship.

Yet another great arguement as to why the Devs should focus on AI and other current problems instead of tangenting off into a year-long power overhaul.

 

[Lecic]

Waffleboards and turretspam say hello.

This is not a solution to gigantism.

 

[kingreol]

Yet another great arguement as to why the Devs should focus on AI and other current problems instead of tangenting off into a year-long power overhaul.

I agree. As I believe most people do. Fleets, ai, turrets. And a better UI to manage. (Why is turret control still under a system collective tab with a undock button right next to it)

 

[Qweesdy]

If bigger weapon arrays produce a lot more heat as they get larger, that would be a very good downward pressure on weapon array sizes. If that means smaller weapons become more of the norm, less space would be needed to dedicate to them, and to supporting them. Which means smaller ships.

And smaller weapon arrays (and by that I mean less damage output) means less shielding is needed (again leading to smaller ships), and armor becomes more viable.

The game would gain a lot more in the terms of creative ship designs as opposed to just nifty hull designs, and we'd gain a lot of downward pressures on ship size that don't FEEL like arbitrary size limiters.

Which could be the nail in the coffin of "Biggest ship always wins".

If bigger weapon arrays produce a lot more heat as they get larger, that would be a very good upward pressure on reactor sizes. If that means huge reactors become more of the norm, more space would be needed to dedicate to them, and to supporting them. Which means larger ships.

And larger weapon arrays (and by that I mean a lot more damage output for the same space) means much more shielding is needed (again leading to even larger ships), and multiple layers of armor becomes more necessary (and all the thrust, etc to cope with the extra mass of extra armour, which makes the ship ever larger).

The game would gain a lot more in the terms of creative ship designs as opposed to slapping together the 20 blocks you're given when you first join a server and realising that you've just made the most effective ship possible. With a lot of upward pressures on ship size that doesn't FEEL like arbitrary size limiters, you give people something to strive towards and give people a reason to bother playing the game for more than 5 minutes.

Which could be the nail in the coffin of "retard that is too lazy to gather resources or spend time playing the game always wins".

 

[Raisinbat]

• 6 turrets which occupy 80% of the visible surface

• 6 turrets which occupy 20% of the visible surface

Option 3:

• 24 turrets which occupy 80% of the visible surface

Your entire premise for this is ridiculous, how about instead of yet another poorly thought out solution to a problem that doesn't exist you explain why your ships shape and layout should have zero impact on functionality.

Waffleboards and turretspam say hello.

This is not a solution to gigantism.

You don't build competitive ships. Trying to get the devs to make your ships competitive for you will never work because you aren't trying and you never will.

All youre doing is ruining the game for competitive builders with a bunch of idiotic suggestions that wont work because you don't understand the mechanics, which is also the reason your ships suck.

Which could be the nail in the coffin of "Biggest ship always wins".

Why. the. fuck. shouldn't. it???

It's more expensive, takes a lot more effort to make and already have a ton of handicaps over smaller ships in terms of energy production, turning speed and just plain being a bigger target.

Also a 4000 mass ship that's well designed can beat a 70.000 mass ship that isn't, so no bigger doesn't always win.

Every single premise laid out by the people in favor of this nonsense is either false or is asking for ship design to have zero impact on performance in combat. Do you seriously want to turn ship building into a purely cosmetic thing?

Currently the problem is that everything requires too many blocks to be effective.
Weapons have to have a certain size before they are even viable and that entry size in my opinion is too much.
Smaller weapons you say? Have you ever fired at advanced armor with the barest of minimum weapon systems, you would find your ship only scratching or denting the hull barely which is why my smallest ships have to be 90% gun just to be viable to destroy a few blocks at a time with already high power demands.

BECAUSE It's CAN/CAN. Try the same weapon size with can/beam or can/pulse and voila, no. fucking. issue. 1/1/1 Can/pul/punchthrough can go through 1 block of standard armor, but you never use that because everything has to be pew pew pew like in star wars. These forums have made me appreciate the star wars prequels because that's the kind of punishment you deserve for this.

Forcing empty space into the game just gives us more ways to beat you, and as we've pointed out i don't know how many times, competitive ships are perfectly capable of having interior; you're just bad at the game.

The entire premise of everything you complain about is rooted in wanting to replicate sci-fi designs and expecting the game to throw all mechanics away that disrupt your stupid preconceptions:

• Fighter weapons must be tiny and rapid fire
• Always multiple outputs to make penetration worse
• Only the weapon barrel is allowed to consist of weapon blocks, NOTHING ELSE

But those sci-fi shows don't have rules fleshed out enough to actually build ships according to them, and if they did the designs portrayed would be laughably inferior to what actually works. Your replicas will always be garbage, DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Kelpaz]

Option 3:

BECAUSE It's CAN/CAN. Try the same weapon size with can/beam or can/pulse and voila, no. fucking. issue. 1/1/1 Can/pul/punchthrough can go through 1 block of standard armor, but you never use that because everything has to be pew pew pew like in star wars. These forums have made me appreciate the star wars prequels because that's the kind of punishment you deserve for this.

Forcing empty space into the game just gives us more ways to beat you, and as we've pointed out i don't know how many times, competitive ships are perfectly capable of having interior; you're just bad at the game.

The entire premise of everything you complain about is rooted in wanting to replicate sci-fi designs and expecting the game to throw all mechanics away that disrupt your stupid preconceptions:

• Fighter weapons must be tiny and rapid fire
• Always multiple outputs to make penetration worse
• Only the weapon barrel is allowed to consist of weapon blocks, NOTHING ELSE

But those sci-fi shows don't have rules fleshed out enough to actually build ships according to them, and if they did the designs portrayed would be laughably inferior to what actually works. Your replicas will always be garbage, DEAL WITH IT.

You sound a little hostile there calm down.
Do not assume that I try to recreate any sci-fi ship as seen in series or movie, I never done that because I like to build my own designs.

When I build small craft I always give them atleast a variation of weapons, a rapid fire cannon is ideal combined with either slow firing ion cannons or missiles depending on specialisation.

I have made lots of weapon testing and cannon/anything, my conclusion is that unless it's used as a volley gun with many outputs at once or as an ion anti shield weapon, it's not that great.
AI don't always have the best aim and giving them slow firing weapons would be detrimental to the fleets.

Small craft example: The lightest, cheapest ones I have.

I like designing weapon barrels but the majority of any weapon system is always on the inside, same goes for turrets.
On the large scale it's easy to get away with a decent can/can combined with other hard hitting weapons, I never rely on a single system.

Here's a frigate example: The Keroshtner an old ship that's been refitted over ten times.

The turrets are huge because of how they were built before rails.

On the largest spectrum weapons of any size can be made easily but at that scale the ship has a loss of manouverability.

Capital ship example: Equus Super battleship.

So no I don't build replicas or whatever you assumed I did.

 

[Ithirahad]

Waffles are the hard counter too all size based weapon penalties.

Waffles means a lot of overlapping heat boxes. It seems to be agreed between us and Schine that having certain systems (i.e. weapons) emit their own heat would make sense, and so a waffle array would only be particularly efficient at melting itself.

 

[NeonSturm]

Option 3:

• 24 turrets which occupy 80% of the visible surface

Your entire premise for this is ridiculous, how about instead of yet another poorly thought out solution to a problem that doesn't exist you explain why your ships shape and layout should have zero impact on functionality.

Tells me you don't understand what I meant.

If you have 24 smaller ones, you can only use 6 because of heat.
It's not about how much area you have for guns, but how much area the guns you can use occupy on your ship.​

 

[Comradecolonel]

So limit how big my weapons and other systems are? If I want to make a giant planet busting cannon I shouldn't have to wrestle with the game to even get it to function. Gigantism isn't really an issue with the game itself. Its more of an issue when everyone is on build server and wants to fight with no mass limit. People just keep calling in bigger an and bigger ships until some joker decides to spawn in his 2m mass titan and people can't even scratch the paint.

As far a gameplay goes, if you were have a faction war you wouldn't be bringing in the biggest ship you could. You would scale your fleet to your own personnel and the enemy fleet. Using smaller ships of somewhat comparable mass is preferable, as multiple entities are preferable to single entities. Ironically gigantism is a very small issue that only effects a small amount of situations.

 

[NeonSturm]

Again, that's not what I meant

I haven't said anything about ship size being 100m or 10km. I speak about turret size vs ship size (a ratio).
And if your cannon does not look big enough, you can slab armour onto it or build fewer bigger turrets instead of many small ones + some fake ones.​