I honestly think your entire argument is flawed here, in the real world we use ammunition, in starmade we use energy to fire our weapons, now this being said, the barrel can be the weapon output, and the base of the turret it's powerplant (since there's no other purpose for the base than it being the source of power)
if we remove the powerplant from the turret, what else is there to put into the base of the turret? we'd be back to how we started with the old docking system
My only argument is that turrets do not
NEED independent power, there is no RP/fictional basis for reactor turrets, and therefore the game should not include it in this upcoming overhaul considering the long history of exploits specifically rooted in docked power.
In-turret power is not based on anything in real life or fiction. Ammo is not equivalent nor analogous to power supply. It only serves to damage gameplay.
The thing is, Starmade is just 'sploity by its very nature.
This is not a cause to include a known window for several of the worst exploits in a new overhaul. It supports eliminating known exploit opportunities, not embracing them.
There is literally nothing keeping you from putting the stabilizers on the outside of the ship, a couple kilometers away, floating out in space, connected by nothing save for a thin tractor beam tether and surrounded by hardened armor and heavy shielding.
If we permit reactor turrets then no, there certainly will not be, and you are actually elaborating on a major part of my point.
With fully fixed power and no exploitable reactor stacking via turret there absolutely
is something preventing it. It's called "maneuverability." Something that does not enter into your consideration at all when you think in terms of self-powered mega-turrets because (as initially mentioned) vessels sporting super weapon turrets are effectively several-ships-in-one and tend to ruin maneuverability for pilots by in effect exploiting framerate lag and so are optimized to rely on BobbyAI to win engagements against human opponents. Without the lag a human pilot in a corvette or fast frigate can outmaneuver a ship with proportions like those you describe. Easily. AI turrets can't even properly track a fighter with good overdrive. If the pilot can actually see what is happening and maneuver in real time. Frequently they can't though because there is too often a super-ship involved, and all such framerate killers rely on reactor turrets / docked power to exist.
Look back at my initial argument against extending docked power. It's a massive, underlying part of what makes the game so exploitable.
It creates the ability to build ships which - by design or accident - instagib anyone who has
not built based on engagement scenarios where maneuverability cannot ever come into play because of framerate lag, making the actual meta purely about turret optimization on ships that aren't actually functional in the way the game is meant to be played (ie where opponents can effectively evade superior static firepower by investing in superior maneuverability).
If ships are limited to working within the confines of a single reactor and powering
ALL of their weapons from that one reactor, all the kinds of exploits you describe become naturally worthless because they literally all rely on ignoring maneuverability. Hundreds of mines all spaced way out, floating turrets spaced way out, stabilizers spaced way out - those exploits all exist
because of the docked power turret meta that kills maneuverability because they all three involve massive maneuverability penalties.
Reactor turrets negate maneuver bonuses and penalties, which is the balance function the devs deliberately implemented to combat exactly the class of exploits you mention. Reactor turrets serve no legitimate purpose, they have no fictional or RL basis, and they only cause many problems. People are deliberately building to negate maneuverability and focusing on turreted superweapons because with maneuverability penalties they can safely do that.
Why keep a system that supports such exploits and others when it serves no actual need?
[doublepost=1495142449,1495142077][/doublepost]
That is provided schema puts that in, if not the base is still useless
Why does it have to be more than a mechanical component that defines the first axis of the turrets rotation? I fail to see how that is a problem. They're necessary to turrets, so by definition not actually "useless," must they have a bunch of other functions besides their intended one?
