Recognized Make ship's weapons not go through the ship

[Snk]

If there was no gain to it, then why do it? If you had a hundred dollars, would you pay a dollar for an empty bag you didn't need?

Aesthetics? Realism? Makes sense?

 

[CyberTao]

Aesthetics? Realism? Makes sense?

Aesthetics? Some people use different design styles. It'd work for some styles, but not the majority I feel.

Realism? People still argue that? Why not make bathrooms mandatory as well. We'd need a bladder and poo system to go with our hunger and Vitamin D requirements.

It would make sense if we were to push a certain style and design on people. But we are not. People can build whatever they want and RP it however they want. If you want it that way, then build that way, nothing is stopping you.

 

[Snk]

Aesthetics? Some people use different design styles. It'd work for some styles, but not the majority I feel.

Realism? People still argue that? Why not make bathrooms mandatory as well. We'd need a bladder and poo system to go with our hunger and Vitamin D requirements.

It would make sense if we were to push a certain style and design on people. But we are not. People can build whatever they want and RP it however they want. If you want it that way, then build that way, nothing is stopping you.

You forget the suggestion would be probably config editable anyways.

 

[Blakpik]

Okay, just saying, given the amount of sudden activity, I retract my lock request.
[DOUBLEPOST=1424327655,1424325644][/DOUBLEPOST]

... no gain to it...

Your argument here is based on one major fallacy, and that is that this suggestion has no redeeming features and that I made it just to piss on everyone's day. I didn't make this suggestion to be inconvenient as much as you seem to like to say so.
I made this suggestion with both aesthetics and practicality in mind. I am not saying that my suggestion is infallible. Numerous issues have been brought to my attention. Allow me to mention some benefits that this would give.

It would discourage doom cubes, even if only slightly. By forcing there to be weapons on the surface of the cube, the usually indestructible box now has a video game weak spot, as the cannon is weaker than the hull. It is by no means a perfect solution and if that was the only benefit I would not have suggested it.

Aesthetic gains would be the ability to add those little aesthetic light features inside your ship without wildly firing into space.

Similarly the ability to contain weapons would make it more practically viable to use the method of surrounding an asteroid with salvagers to mine it (see the Harvester Squid http://starmadedock.net/content/harvester-squid.2207/ ) , without accidentally mining everything else in a 2 kilometer radius.

You do not have to agree with what I have just said now or anything in this thread, but to say, and I quote, that there is "no gain to it" is untrue. There are many issues with the suggestion. Beam convergence and Decorative Shipbuilding being the main ones, so I am not saying it is perfect.

 

[CyberTao]

It would discourage doom cubes, even if only slightly. By forcing there to be weapons on the surface of the cube, the usually indestructible box now has a video game weak spot, as the cannon is weaker than the hull. It is by no means a perfect solution and if that was the only benefit I would not have suggested it.

A true doom cube has no hull. Hull is worthless at the movement, providing no additional protection against large ship weapons, which is what they were made to smash. Their weapons are already at the front, to maximize on range, and all hull is replace with shields, since shields are more useful defense wise. The would also have a jumpdrive to get away before the shields went down.

Even if it did have hull, a 1x1 square is hardly easy to snipe through, and proper weapon design would mean that you would have to. It genuinely does not help with the death cube 'problem', what you are thinking of are people that don't have aesthetic 'skills'. I know a few people who just make what could be described as giant Geometric shapes, and they build like that because that is their ability and they don't care enough to greeble (some even consider greebling ugly)

Aesthetic gains would be the ability to add those little aesthetic light features inside your ship without wildly firing into space.

You can already do that. If you are talking aesthetics, simple dock a small ship and make it fire. Since it is not the same ship the beams would be stopped when they hit the mothership if I'm remembering right.

For the posted example ship, remove the front bit and replace it with a forward facing docking module (The ship will look down, but that doesn't matter). Next, build the tentacles withing the docking right up against the edge, cutting off the curved "cap" on the sides. Undock it and build that cap as part as the main ship right up against the docking zone, then redock.
If done right, it creates an almost seamless connection, and when you fire, the beams should be stopped by the "caps" on the opposite side. Use logic to activate the salvage array. The tentacles themselves would be weak and without shields, but such a design is for Roleplay anyways, and I don't imagine it would want to stick around in a fight.

I dunno, I tested and a docked core with a salvage beam was stopped when it hit the mothership (The same was no true in reverse though).

 

[Gandrac]

What about using an approach that is already implemented to change the color of the projectile/beam fired from a weaponcomputer?

In this scenario you would select an aesthetics cube (light, crystal etc.) and connect it to a weapon module or thruster cube to change the appearance of the module to this of the aesthetics cube.

This approach would please builders and make the game more strategic at the same time (and minimises the need to have cubes without function).

 

[Panpiper]

...that would discourage the O so evil DOOM CUBES!

If you want to discourage doom cubes (or more properly have mechanics that stop 'en'couraging them), eliminate the XYZ factor in determining turn rate and base it solely on mass. That and reduce the mass of decorative blocks and basic hull to zero or near zero. Make such blocks not despawn weapon fire.

I am a builder of 'doom cubes'. Make those changes and I will stop building cubes.

 

[CyberTao]

Spoiler: Off-topic, Block mass

reduce the mass of decorative blocks and basic hull to zero or near zero.

We already had a block with a mass of 0 before, it was abused. Even making it so it doesn't stop shots would probably run into issues with missiles colliding and exploding, or beams bugging out and hitting them.

We will no doubt get varying masses on blocks, but chances are things like Hull and Terrain rock will see an increase in mass, along with an increase in thruster output. The real decorative blocks (meshes, grill, medical cabinets, various mid-stage factory products, and other blocks in the decoration tab) will probably stay at 0.1 mass.

Basic hull is still a hull (higher HP), so it would at least be raised to 0.2 mass (minimum) I would think, which wouldn't be that bad if something like advanced is 0.6 or something. Instead of making X smaller (which may run into bugs), make everything else bigger!

 

[zigyzigy]

No. This is just a bad idea and there are a million and 1 other ways that actually add to the functionality of the gameplay to nerf doom cubes than this. this would ruin any kind of aesthetic to the game with systems sticking out everywhere, this is a terrible terrible idea.

 

[MardenTheReal]

Sorry to say this but i almost ALWAYS make custom barrels and exit points for weapons. Sometimes might be good making the weapon blocks visible but most times it doesn't.

 

[Calbiri]

I can see where the OP is coming from with this, and it has logic behind it. But, many decisions we have made in the creation of this game have been preferential to creativity over hard physics. although it would force a single block to be exposed to fire a weapon, it would not however prevent doom cubes from simply burying that block in a tunnel 100 meters deep that you could never shoot down. Instead, I'd like to imagine that despite us building everything via cubes, some of those Hull and Armor blocks have proper gun barrels withing them attached to the embedded weapons. Its not a perfect solution, but given the resolution we have to work with, I beleive this is preferable to impinging on the creativity of the artistic players in order to force more creativity from those who are happy to just make cubes.

 

[sgallaty]

For what it's worth, while I understand the desire for greater aesthetics, I detect a hint of "but it's better for my ship if my weapons are deep inside."

Yes, it's gainful and advantageous but there's a reason that the weapons are on the outside - and without the weapons on the outside they are not vulnerable, and they should be. Combat should be about disabling weapons first, and then removing the ability to escape second. Actually -killing- the opponent should come hard.

That is, if you want it to be fun. Right now, arguably, getting one shotted by 100 swarm missiles from theinside of a giant cube of heavy armor, that is not fun. Or realistic, believable or even attractive.

 

[Calbiri]

I'd like to point out that despite game mechanics, the ships i have built always have had an exposed weapon block, so no hints were dropped here.

Also don't forget that many ships primary weapons are on the turrets, as these have an easier time targeting enemy ships.

Further, planned changes to not only missiles, but ship thrust behavior as well as survivability will continue to bring ship into a more expected behavioral range.

You mentioned using swarm missiles, I'll just mention using a jammer.

 

[CyberTao]

Yes, it's gainful and advantageous but there's a reason that the weapons are on the outside - and without the weapons on the outside they are not vulnerable, and they should be. Combat should be about disabling weapons first, and then removing the ability to escape second. Actually -killing- the opponent should come hard.

Disabling weapons first is more of an... opinion I guess. Once we get the thruster changes (which I desperately want), the engines become a greater target, since they will be tied to turn speed as well. In the current game, power storage is much more vital to large ships, since without it, you can't shoot or move very well. Plus jump drive. If you're lucky enough to find that, you keep the bugger from getting away.

But yeah, there are other targets, weapons themselves are the least valuable when you start to take damage, because half a weapon can still shoot. Half your power and you can't shoot at all. Half your engines and suddenly they'd get behind you. Weapons and shield capacitors are the least useful once shields are down in comparison.

 

[sgallaty]

Engines affecting turn rate - then we'll have to argue about engines being exposed to work.

 

[CyberTao]

Engines affecting turn rate - then we'll have to argue about engines being exposed to work.

Not really. Most engagements (would hopefully) start at long ranges, so putting engines at the back becomes the safest place for them, since shots would have to travel the length of the ship. After that, proper maneuvering and escorts (if needed) are what you would need.

Besides, engines don't combine textures, and there are no engines wedges. Large engines would actually be quite ugly if not for their crystal layer. You'd piss off a lot of ship builders with such a change, because there is no possible way to make that pretty. I hate to just argue the aesthetics, but it really would be a huge disappointment if thrusters had to be exposed.

 

[Blakpik]

You mentioned using swarm missiles, I'll just mention using a jammer.

That doesn't strike me as a real solution to the problem, Only a way for it to stop affecting people on an individual basis.

 

[Calbiri]

I don't view the tactical options as a problem, attacking someone with a barrage of swarmers IS an option. Who's to say they cant be housed and launched from the center of ships? Again, this comes back to if you consider the ship blocks to be solid or framework with a shell.

The only real consideration to be made here is how a well protected weapon system affects combat balance, its not like your own systems need to be more exposed than theirs, this thing goes both ways. As is, it is not forcing specific design choices on players, and that is preferable. Also, every "system" that you might propose to check this issue either runs into performance effecting checks, or loopholes that the cubes will happily design around, negating the solution while restricting the more decorative designs. Combat balance IS something we consider and will continue to be while I work on this game.