Shields and turrets

[PizzaPress]

I would have it so(ex.) at 100%-95% mothership shields, all damage is absorbed; it goes down from there. That way players, pirates and drones can't just annoy a massive ship far stronger than them or create a blind spot too easily(esp. if large ships get a lower max speed), and turrets have some protection but aren't invincible(if you stand a reasonable chance against the ship, if you can't do 5% shield damage you running anyway, rather than just being an annoyance).

 

[lazarus78]

Big ships shouldn't be vulnerable to small ships. However, turrets are, by nature, a small ship themselves. So, a fighter should be able to take them down. You can't expect a machinegun to take down an aircraft carrier, yes, but in Starmade, all weapons (should) have equal DPS, so a machinegun can take down an aircraft carrier. Of course, that's not what you meant, is it? You meant a small gun shouldn't be able to take down a big ship.

Turrets are weakspots that exist for gameplay purposes. The ability to have weapons that can hit independent of the main ship's turning rate is a powerful one. So, the limiter to that is that smaller, agile ships can take them out, at the risk of being destroyed by the fact that a ship can have numerous turrets, or that a ship can manage to get its main guns on a fighter on occasion.

You seem to be forgetting that turrets (and drones) can fire lock-on missiles without lock on times. This makes being a fighter very dangerous, as you already have lower shields.

Im not saying smaller craft should be ineffective against bigger ships. A handful of fighters can create an area of denial, preventing other ships from performing their function.

My main gripe is turrets being inherently vulnerable while the ship is still shielded. This is what I don't agree with. This is a straight up flaw in design. If such a mechanic were necessary for balance purposes, then why has no other game EVER done it? It just doesn't make sense.

This is why I would prefer bubble shields, or turrets sharing shields. It makes sense. No one in their right mind would ever design something with intentional weak spots. That is simply stupid.

Bombers weren't much bigger than fighters, and it only took a single well aimed bomb or two to sink a ship.

But they weren't maneuverable and could barely defend themselves. Most bombers were shot out of the sky during WW2 because of this. Not to mention bombers have become obsolete in favor of precision strikes. Any ship sinking won't come from a a plane, but from another ship.

Turrets are not supposed to be vulnerable by design, but they also aren't as strong as the ship (because turrets require all that engineering and such for the gun)

Turrets have a shared strength with the structure they are attached to. Shure you can pop a turret itself, or you can destroy the structure. But we also need to factor in the shield, who's purpose is to protect the structure, which the turret is itself a part of.

 

[CyberTao]

This is a straight up flaw in design. If such a mechanic were necessary for balance purposes, then why has no other game EVER done it? It just doesn't make sense.

Why does it matter that starmade wants to do something different? Different can be good, it's a new experience. Starmade, unlike "most other games" doesn't have a HP system yet, and even when it does, it would work differently than "most other games". Should we protest that as well? Other games have fixed weapon stats as well, plus pre-selected ships to choose from. Starmade is nothing like other games in most regards, just that it's in space, and we have stations and turrets.

If the argument is that "other games do it", it doesn't like an argument, it's closer to whining (no offense). Starmade has it's own way of doing things, and while it might seem like it is getting closer to being like X game, but it will never be X game.

That said, the shipyard system will make replacing turrets easier. Better AI prioritizing will make getting close harder and PD more effective. Having that bug that missiles damage through hull fixed and an ability to toggle Logic from the core (or via a crew member) means you can close plexdoor shutters (which don't stop shots when open) over your smaller turrets when you see a missile coming that you cant stop. We have more features coming, consider the effect they would have on how things would work. For all we know you might be able to make some turrets part of the main ship with rails and spinning blocks to some extent.

 

[Lecic]

Im not saying smaller craft should be ineffective against bigger ships. A handful of fighters can create an area of denial, preventing other ships from performing their function.

My main gripe is turrets being inherently vulnerable while the ship is still shielded. This is what I don't agree with. This is a straight up flaw in design. If such a mechanic were necessary for balance purposes, then why has no other game EVER done it? It just doesn't make sense.

This is why I would prefer bubble shields, or turrets sharing shields. It makes sense. No one in their right mind would ever design something with intentional weak spots. That is simply stupid.

If ships are protected by the main ships shields, you'll end up with massively turreted ships. Large ships won't focus on forward facing weapons, they'll have dozens and dozens of ships with superior turning speed slapped all over them instead. And there won't even be a counter for it, besides flooding the battlefield with hundreds of cores to distract the AI.

Fighters will essentially be useless if there's a change to bubble shields. There will be two types of ships- big ones, and small drones. No one's going to pilot a fighter because "area of denial" when they could pilot a frigate and actually contribute.

No other game has the ability to create oversized, custom turrets like Starmade. Those game devs can make bombers with "superweapon" strength for the space they take up, because they don't need to have linear weapons to keep waffleboard shotguns away, because people can't build their ships BLOCK BY BLOCK like we can.

 

[lazarus78]

Why does it matter that starmade wants to do something different? Different can be good, it's a new experience. Starmade, unlike "most other games" doesn't have a HP system yet, and even when it does, it would work differently than "most other games". Should we protest that as well? Other games have fixed weapon stats as well, plus pre-selected ships to choose from. Starmade is nothing like other games in most regards, just that it's in space, and we have stations and turrets.

If the argument is that "other games do it", it doesn't like an argument, it's closer to whining (no offense). Starmade has it's own way of doing things, and while it might seem like it is getting closer to being like X game, but it will never be X game.

That said, the shipyard system will make replacing turrets easier. Better AI prioritizing will make getting close harder and PD more effective. Having that bug that missiles damage through hull fixed and an ability to toggle Logic from the core (or via a crew member) means you can close plexdoor shutters (which don't stop shots when open) over your smaller turrets when you see a missile coming that you cant stop. We have more features coming, consider the effect they would have on how things would work. For all we know you might be able to make some turrets part of the main ship with rails and spinning blocks to some extent.

Because, IMO, the current design choice is indeed bad and will always be bad. It doesn't make and practical sense of any kind.

The shipyard system will indeed make this issue more manageable. I am not looking for Starmade to be made into X game. I just don't think that in order for starmade to stand out on its own, that every feature of the game has to be done differently. Other games do similar things in similar ways because it is a tried and proven method, and in the case of shields, leaving the turrets specifically vulnerable, is a flawed design. Starmade stands out because it is a "Build your own ship" space game, and if they are going to do shields, I would hope they are done as shields should be. Internally, the game may handle turrets as just docked ships, but why does this have to define how they behave in gameplay?

 

[CyberTao]

Because, IMO, the current design choice is indeed bad and will always be bad. It doesn't make and practical sense of any kind.

The shipyard system will indeed make this issue more manageable. I am not looking for Starmade to be made into X game. I just don't think that in order for starmade to stand out on its own, that every feature of the game has to be done differently. Other games do similar things in similar ways because it is a tried and proven method, and in the case of shields, leaving the turrets specifically vulnerable, is a flawed design. Starmade stands out because it is a "Build your own ship" space game, and if they are going to do shields, I would hope they are done as shields should be. Internally, the game may handle turrets as just docked ships, but why does this have to define how they behave in gameplay?

What happens if there are recharges on the turret? How well will that sync in terms of recharging the shield when there are hundreds of turrets?

What happens if a missile hits your turret bank? If they share shields, would the damage to shields be multiplied? While a missile hitting nearby shouldn't inflict full damage to a turret, the turret should still take some damage if shields are down, but then it also take damage while shields are up, meaning the shields take an extra hit.

What about docked objects in fixed docking? I always considered turrets and docking to have a similar setup, but if docked objects shared shields, it would render any form of shield regeneration core impossible (though impractical, I like to dream), as well as additional shield plates docked to the side.

As well, you also still have that balance issue of a ship's main weapons now being on a swivel. How do you keep a ship from being about to point it's main weaponry at a passing fighter, when the assumed balance is that they bigger ship wouldn't be able to, and thus rely on turrets?

 

[Snk]

But they weren't maneuverable and could barely defend themselves. Most bombers were shot out of the sky during WW2 because of this. Not to mention bombers have become obsolete in favor of precision strikes. Any ship sinking won't come from a a plane, but from another ship.

There hasn't been a major naval battle in 70 years. No one really knows how it would work out.

 

[lazarus78]

There hasn't been a major naval battle in 70 years. No one really knows how it would work out.

A US carrier strike group has a defensive range of over 100 miles. Most all ships in the group have anti-air capabilities, not counting the aircraft on the carrier itself. You would be hard pressed to get a bomber within visual range of a carrier.

What happens if there are recharges on the turret? How well will that sync in terms of recharging the shield when there are hundreds of turrets?

What happens if a missile hits your turret bank? If they share shields, would the damage to shields be multiplied? While a missile hitting nearby shouldn't inflict full damage to a turret, the turret should still take some damage if shields are down, but then it also take damage while shields are up, meaning the shields take an extra hit.

What about docked objects in fixed docking? I always considered turrets and docking to have a similar setup, but if docked objects shared shields, it would render any form of shield regeneration core impossible (though impractical, I like to dream), as well as additional shield plates docked to the side.

As well, you also still have that balance issue of a ship's main weapons now being on a swivel. How do you keep a ship from being about to point it's main weaponry at a passing fighter, when the assumed balance is that they bigger ship wouldn't be able to, and thus rely on turrets?

I don't understand 90% of what you just said. Please form coherent sentences.

"As well, you also still have that balance issue of a ship's main weapons now being on a swivel."

You mean, kinda like how real battleships are set up? Bigger "main gun" turrets turn slower. Smaller AA turrets turn faster. Simple.

If a missile hits a turret, the damage is applied to the ship's shields. Simple.

This isn't some complex idea.

 

[CyberTao]

A US carrier strike group has a defensive range of over 100 miles. Most all ships in the group have anti-air capabilities, not counting the aircraft on the carrier itself. You would be hard pressed to get a bomber within visual range of a carrier.


I don't understand 90% of what you just said. Please form coherent sentences.

"As well, you also still have that balance issue of a ship's main weapons now being on a swivel."

You mean, kinda like how real battleships are set up? Bigger "main gun" turrets turn slower. Smaller AA turrets turn faster. Simple.

If a missile hits a turret, the damage is applied to the ship's shields. Simple.

This isn't some complex idea.

Believe it or not, I was throwing out questions about possible lag and issues. I figured it would just be better to throw out the questions my thoughts had lead to then try and word it into a less comprehensible and oversized post.

A battleship can fire better rounds from a bigger gun. In starmade, 100 small turrets with the same mass as 1 big one are superior in almost every regard except shielding. The range is the same, no power capacitors are needed, you can easily get the grouping bonus for each gun to be self sustaining, don't need effects like punch, peirce or explosive, and they are smaller, so faster turning when turrets are improved. The even look better. The only advantage a large ship had was it's size and room for shields. Where is your balance here? Why would anyone with a lick of sense make a large turret?

And the question isn't "if a missile hits a turret", the question is "what happens when a missile hits and the radius spreads out over multiple turrets?" There is a difference, since what would ideally happen would be different depending on if shields are up or not.
If the shields are down, the turrets would be damaged, as per normal. But if the shields are up, the explosion still hits the turrets, and that damage would be applied to the shields multiple times since it is hitting in multiple instances. Is damage to turrets suppose to be ignored when shields are up?

 

[lazarus78]

A battleship can fire better rounds from a bigger gun. In starmade, 100 small turrets with the same mass as 1 big one are superior in almost every regard except shielding. The range is the same, no power capacitors are needed, you can easily get the grouping bonus for each gun to be self sustaining, don't need effects like punch, peirce or explosive, and they are smaller, so faster turning when turrets are improved. The even look better. The only advantage a large ship had was it's size and room for shields. Where is your balance here? Why would anyone with a lick of sense make a large turret?

And the question isn't "if a missile hits a turret", the question is "what happens when a missile hits and the radius spreads out over multiple turrets?" There is a difference, since what would ideally happen would be different depending on if shields are up or not.
If the shields are down, the turrets would be damaged, as per normal. But if the shields are up, the explosion still hits the turrets, and that damage would be applied to the shields multiple times since it is hitting in multiple instances. Is damage to turrets suppose to be ignored when shields are up?

1. That is then more an issue of weapon scaling than one of shields. But thankfully balancing is still in the works.

2. I'm not quite following. If a missile explodes, it should damage whatever it hits, so if there are many turrets around that would get hit, then yes, the damage is applied appropriately as normal. How would this differ from a missile exploding under an overhang? Wouldn't the explosion hit the bottom and the top parts of this, causing double damage as well? If not, Either way, apply the same logic to turrets. Problem solved.

IE: imagine this is a cross section of an overhang on a ship, and a missile explodes indie it.

http://i.imgur.com/m9renVB.png

As you can see, the explosion radius would hit the opposite side of the gap, so how does the game currently handle this type of event? If it does nothing, then do the same for turrets. If it applies damage to the opposite side, then do the same for turrets. Once again, simple.

 

[Lecic]

1. That is then more an issue of weapon scaling than one of shields. But thankfully balancing is still in the works.

2. I'm not quite following. If a missile explodes, it should damage whatever it hits, so if there are many turrets around that would get hit, then yes, the damage is applied appropriately as normal. How would this differ from a missile exploding under an overhang? Wouldn't the explosion hit the bottom and the top parts of this, causing double damage as well? If not, Either way, apply the same logic to turrets. Problem solved.

IE: imagine this is a cross section of an overhang on a ship, and a missile explodes indie it.

http://i.imgur.com/m9renVB.png

As you can see, the explosion radius would hit the opposite side of the gap, so how does the game currently handle this type of event? If it does nothing, then do the same for turrets. If it applies damage to the opposite side, then do the same for turrets. Once again, simple.

An entity can only take damage from a missile one time. However, turrets are separate entities, so the shields would be hit twice or more times.

 

[Sgtwisky]

I've given some thought to this. I'd like to suggest to ability to link both types of shield blocks to docks, both turret and static. The linked blocks no longer count towards the motherships shield count, and instead provide shields to the entity that is docked in the zone that has the shield blocks linked to it.

This means that the turret doesn't get an instant boost simply from the mothership shields.
It also means the ship designer can choose either shields on the turret, or on the mothership, leading to more effective turrets, and useful protection for fighters and drones while they are docked, without being too OP, since you have to sacrifice mothership mass/space to gain the extra protection.

THIS is what I have been thinking while reading this thread. Hope more people notice this.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

I think part of the issue is that shields are basically the way to go when it comes to defence, due to armor being quite underperforming and the general issue of small ship vs big ship.

I am for turrets getting shielding from their mothership. While they are a seperate entity-code-wise, they should be seen as a turnable part of the mothership. It makes no sense that they do not have a shield. The amount of shielding they get from the mothership can be limited, yes, but it should still exist. Turrets should be weapon-plattforms, not shield boxes with some guns. Even big turrets can get blown away quite easily by capital ships, and that's the issue.

Why can't we have capital vs capital fights were the turrets are the main damage dealers? In my opinion it looks cool when there's many turrets firing at another ship and create a projectile rain, cooler than a ship using it's main AMC which simply shoots one line of extremely high damage projectiles.

Of course turrets with mothership-shields cannot be blown of by smaller ships as easily, but why should a single small ship be able to seriously harm a big ship anyway? They shouldn't. But this on the other hand is an issue of the game's economy and general balance and blablabla.

Turrets with mothership-shields are not just instant-OP. It all depends on many other factors. If it would be possible for a single player to create and lead a small fleet of at least AI-commanded ships, then that fleet could take on a big ship tactically for example. In order for that to happen ressource-gathering would have to be automated in a way, because who wants to spend hours upon hours mining asteriods? But this is getting off-topic, but simply because the answer to the question if turrets and mothership should share shields is based on many off-topic matters.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Of course turrets with mothership-shields cannot be blown of by smaller ships as easily, but why should a single small ship be able to seriously harm a big ship anyway?

A turret can't really be considered "serious harm"....

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Yeah, it can. If you mainly rely on them it can. Lets say you want to build a spaceship with mostly side-facing turrets in order to be able to dish out devasting broadsides? Every lost turret is a loss of your firepower. Do you know about the turret suggestion where turrets get independ barrels and have bodies that are properly sunk into the hull? If that happens, then turrets can become very very strong ways of fighting.

Perhaps a way to balance mothership-protected turrets is to make it so: The bigger the turret, the more protection he gets from the mothership. Now you might ask how that makes sense, well it makes a lot of sense if big turrets turn slower. That way small ships can take out small turrets, so the turrets that are actually a threat for them while they simply have to dodge the bigger ones. The big ones would then be more useful against other big ships and have the shielding to survive their fire.

 

[Lecic]

Yeah, it can. If you mainly rely on them it can. Lets say you want to build a spaceship with mostly side-facing turrets in order to be able to dish out devasting broadsides? Every lost turret is a loss of your firepower. Do you know about the turret suggestion where turrets get independ barrels and have bodies that are properly sunk into the hull? If that happens, then turrets can become very very strong ways of fighting.

Perhaps a way to balance mothership-protected turrets is to make it so: The bigger the turret, the more protection he gets from the mothership. Now you might ask how that makes sense, well it makes a lot of sense if big turrets turn slower. That way small ships can take out small turrets, so the turrets that are actually a threat for them while they simply have to dodge the bigger ones. The big ones would then be more useful against other big ships and have the shielding to survive their fire.

You seem to have completely forgotten that the suggestion that lets turrets have parts sunken into the ship (as it uses articulated parts) dramatically increases their ability to hold shields.

Additionally, you can't expect to have powerful broadsides that can hit independently of your own, slower turning rate with no downsides. And that downside is you can get your turrets blown off.

 

[lazarus78]

Sunken in

You seem to have completely forgotten that the suggestion that lets turrets have parts sunken into the ship (as it uses articulated parts) dramatically increases their ability to hold shields.

Additionally, you can't expect to have powerful broadsides that can hit independently of your own, slower turning rate with no downsides. And that downside is you can get your turrets blown off.

Sunken turrets does bring up a new issue of more shields, yes. In which case I would opt for turrets not having shield systems of their own, and instead having full coverage from the ship, as shields should do. Take out the shields, and you can start disabling the ship, which has been the mechanics behind shield technology for... ever.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

The downside of broadsides is that you expose your broad, easy to hit side to the enemy instead of your slimmer front. It also just makes more sense having to disable shields, then its subsystems, eh, probably because I also prefer shields to have no regen during combat, so even small ships can wear the shield down as long as they group up, or take time.

Even a sunken turret can only have enough shielding of its own if it takes up a lot of hull space within its motership, which would leave less space to shield that. Of course this sounds like a way to add a tactical, either protect your ship or your turrets better instead of protecting both, but I'm still in favor of turrets being pure weapon plattforms as it just is what a turret should be.

Taking away hull space from the mothership might also leave less space for main weapons in said ship though, hmmm.. so turret-focused ships could have barely any main weapons and just focus their hull space on protecting their turrets and giving them guns instead.

 

[Lecic]

Sunken in

Sunken turrets does bring up a new issue of more shields, yes. In which case I would opt for turrets not having shield systems of their own, and instead having full coverage from the ship, as shields should do. Take out the shields, and you can start disabling the ship, which has been the mechanics behind shield technology for... ever.

Sunken turrets can hold their own shield count, meaning they don't need coverage from their mothership.

We don't need to copy the same shield mechanics from every other game. Most other games have some sort of bleed through or, as is usual in TV/movies, consoles that are apparently made of explosives.

Starmade's balancing for weapons that can turn independently of the ship they are docked to is the risk of them getting blown off. Why would you ever have forward facing weapons when you could have 5 dozen turrets?

 

[lazarus78]

Starmade's balancing for weapons that can turn independently of the ship they are docked to is the risk of them getting blown off. Why would you ever have forward facing weapons when you could have 5 dozen turrets?

Forward facing "mega" weapon. Turrets for everything else. Use your forward facing gun on the biggest target while your turrets do what they do and take out other targets.

If you make the ship big enough, whats wrong with this? But even among other sci-fi universes, ships actually are rarely both. Homeworld for example, there are no(?) ships that use a forward facing gun AND turrets, but you have ships like the Ion frigate and the destroyer, because putting both systems in a single ship just makes you a massive lumbering target.

So the boils down to if you want to make an anti-capitol ship with a big forward gun, or do you want a shit with big turrets.

I think the issue here is people want "all-in-wonder" ships, which has basically been deemed impossible as seen by modern Navy ship design. Sure you can make a ship that can carry strike craft, have a massive main gun, and several powerful turrets, all while covered in tons of AA, but how effective would it be? Not very.