A Bomber Weapon That Pierces Shields

[GenericFleetCommander]

The gist of the idea is adding a missile type weapon that can pierce shields, but the bigger it is the less powerful it gets respectively. It would support the idea of player driven bombers that can deliver tactical strikes to enemy ships.

I was thinking recently about Star Wars: Empire at War, and how they handled making bombers very useful. They added Plasma (Edit: Proton) Torpedoes that would go through shields and damage the large ship system directly.

I'm not proposing something nearly as powerful. What I propose is this.

-A new weapon with it's respective computer.
-It's properties would include . . .
-Damage in a radius like current missiles (very small)
-A very long reload time (nearly 30 seconds plus at just one block, scales rapidly with more blocks)
-Very high energy cost. (scales rapidly with more blocks)
-Very slow projectile speed. (scales to become slower with more blocks)
-The more blocks you add, the slower the projectile speed but the more damage it does and the larger damage radius it gets.
-Diminishing damage the more powerful the targets shields are. Cannot completely negate damage.
-Attached support systems provide a extremely diminished effect right off the bat and exponentially so for every block placed.

I though of these properties in a way that you can't just slam a massive cannon onto a Titan without creating some way to slow/stop the other ship taking up loads of space on the ship, then the reload time would make it so that it couldn't fire more than once or twice a fight, and finally the speed of the projectile would make it ill suited against anything than large ships. So you have to get up close to use this weapon, making it good for fighters/bombers. And due to it's slow speed, it will take precise aim against a moving target, thus AIs with these bombs attached will either hit hull, non essentials, or nothing at all, and then will need to survive 30 seconds plus to fire again.

I can see two problems, that people will spam it against stations (but missiles will be better at this because of the weapons massive reload time), and that people might use the checker board strategy to fire a large wall at once. The second problem could be removed if there is a de-buff for having too many weapons of this type attached to one system, like decreased performance or extreme energy cost.

That's the idea. Constructive criticism is appreciated greatly.

 

[AtraUnam]

The griefing potential would be incredible. And it could be checker-boarded via logik linked computers thus side-steeping any debuff to multiple outputs; logic could also circumvent the long reload.

 

[Syleiel]

I was thinking recently about Star Wars: Empire at War, and how they handled making bombers very useful. They added Plasma Torpedoes that would go through shields and damage the large ship system directly.

I think you meant proton torpedoes and not plasma torpedoes.

 

[GenericFleetCommander]

I think you meant proton torpedoes and not plasma torpedoes.

Yes I did, thank you, I was checking for a suggestion like this one on the forum search and found a post about missile names in game and they called them plasma torpedoes. Must have gotten them mixed up!

The griefing potential would be incredible. And it could be checker-boarded via logik linked computers thus side-steeping any debuff to multiple outputs; logic could also circumvent the long reload.

How could logic be used to circumvent the reload? I'm not to savvy when it comes to the logic block, I only recently got back in Starmade, at the time when I first played, Starmade had the original site and there was no such thing as logic blocks. Also, in what ways could people grief? I don't have much experience online, I usually go single player to build ships without resource limits.

GenericFleetCommander can you explain how you suposse to fat asses are not going to use bomber weapons too?

I pointed out that placing more blocks together renders a less effective weapon, and that the weapon itself already has slow projectile movement. It's not meant to be completely unusable by capital ships, just far less effective than when placed on a bomber. I called them "Bomber Weapons" to give people a better image of what I meant going in, and not as an absolute. At least now that is cleared up I hope.

 

[Tydeth]

Logic blocks can link to weapons computers, so that when the logic receives an "on" signal, it sends a "fire" command to the weapon. One can chain multiple computers to a string of delays, so that the ship fires one after another. Put 6 1-module bombs on a 30-second clock, and you get a continuous stream of bombs with no further input required.

As for the debuff versus checkerboard in OP, that has already been implemented across the board for all weapon and support systems. The more outputs you have, the more power each one uses.

 

[GenericFleetCommander]

Logic blocks can link to weapons computers, so that when the logic receives an "on" signal, it sends a "fire" command to the weapon. One can chain multiple computers to a string of delays, so that the ship fires one after another. Put 6 1-module bombs on a 30-second clock, and you get a continuous stream of bombs with no further input required.

Ah, thank you. Yes, then I see how that could break this weapon quite a bit.

Sounds like a flaw with the logic blocks if anything else (unless that was intended by the developers). Maybe Starmade needs a bit more core work before it gets more ideas like this then. I know a lot of people have been asking for more work to the base of the game, but I didn't know it was quite so breakable. Ah well, the ideas out there, so it might prove useful later in development.

 

[Tydeth]

You're welcome. The ability to link weapons to logic was an intended feature; it does have its drawbacks, the biggest of which being that the weapon can not be aimed via the mouse when it is fired by logic. It shoots straight in the direction indicated by the weapon computer, except for the pulses (which do their sphere thing) and heat seeking missiles (which look for anything to hit, while ignoring IFF in the process, as usual). So a forward-facing logic weapon requires that you point your ship's bow straight at the target.

Currently, one can press c on a missile computer and then v on a damage pulse computer, with both having modules as normal, to create a slow, high-damage, high-energy-cost, anti-capital warhead that serves a similar premise to the proposed bomb, except for the part about partially ignoring shielding. Shields can be brought down more quickly by any weapon equipped with an Ion Effect, which increases anti-shield damage at the cost of being able to damage the blocks afterwards.

 

[DivineEvil]

I've yet to see any viable argument for why smaller ships are supposed to have any special stuff against large ships. Starmade does not have any specific boundaries between small ships and big ships; That boundary exist only in imagination of people. Both small and big ships has their respective drawbacks, thus I don't understand whats the point there is to create any straight bias towards smallers ships when there's freeform weapon customization for any purpoces and situations to work with.

 

[GenericFleetCommander]

I've yet to see any viable argument for why smaller ships are supposed to have any special stuff against large ships. Starmade does not have any specific boundaries between small ships and big ships; That boundary exist only in imagination of people. Both small and big ships has their respective drawbacks, thus I don't understand whats the point there is to create any straight bias towards smallers ships when there's freeform weapon customization for any purpoces and situations to work with.

These arguments are almost always based on the opinion of the player and writer on what this game is or should be, and it's the same argument that comes up with Doom (or Death) Cubes. Really it boils down to what kind of end game the Devs hope for, or how many options we get.

Take Doom Cubes for example.

Some people love Doom Cubes because they are the peak of efficiency in both damage and effort. I would say that is a min/max approach to this game. Nothing wrong with that. It facilitates open range building that does not fit into any category, and defies the standard people have created for Sci-Fi.

Some people despise Doom Cubes because they take next to no effort to build (Borg Cubes being an rare exception) and destroy epic and thoughtful creations instantly. I would say this is a more "story" based approach to the game (RP and the likes). Nothing wrong with that. It facilitates building with style, creativity, and with a end in mind.

Of course there are more opinions, there are always more, but this is just an example.

This suggestion forum fits more into the story side as I like the idea of a more story based Sci-Fi experience with fighter pilots on the same playing field as frigates so long as it helps the story, and I'd hazard a guess that you prefer a more open range build style that is free form in nature judging by how you speak about the set standards of Sci-Fi.

These two ideologies can't meet without one side winning or both coming out with a little less than before (both of those ends would be detrimental to the game), so it either comes down to the Devs ultimate decision on the direction of the game, or the implementation of a huge amount of customization in terms of what blocks work and how they work. The second choice I am all for as then both sides get what they want, if you hate limits, then just set all to default and run wild. If you like RP and something doesn't fit, delete it, edit it, or move on. The problem with that is it takes time to code, but if the Devs are up for it, Starmade could be propelled to a new level of Sci-Fi gaming, among the greats of our time even, no doubt about it.

 

[Comr4de]

Don't disintegrators already ignore shieldos?


Edit: You're forgetting that to get around the nerf for capital-sized versions of this players could use turret-mounted versions of this.

Like, in star wars or star trek or even real life scenarios it makes sense for a single missile or penetrating shot to set the whole thing ablaze. There are power nodes, or computer systems, or ammunition magazines. If a missile hits that it justifies an entire ship exploding from one shot.

There is no such basis for this in starmade. There are no ship magazines, power nodes, and now there isn't a core for you to oneshot to make a kill from a plucky fighter and a single torpedo.

Personal opinion: I don't think EAW is a good example for a balance discussion. Rebels are so unbelievably imba it hurts.

 

[GenericFleetCommander]

I don't think so, just wiki-ed it and it says they don't damage shields as much, so I think it's safe to say that they don't go through them unless warheads were updated recently. I'll test that regardless.

 

[DivineEvil]

These arguments are almost always based on the opinion of the player and writer on what this game is or should be, and it's the same argument that comes up with Doom (or Death) Cubes. Really it boils down to what kind of end game the Devs hope for, or how many options we get.

I can tell what these arguments are coming from. I just don't see any good ones. So far it seems, that Schema is greatly inspired by Descent:Freespace. That game, by my terms, is the king of all space-sims. There, fighters are working as support units for capital ships; they are not a significant threat for hostile capitals, as it takes a specific bomber-class ship to carry nuclear warheads, three of which are required alone to simply disable a single weapon or damage a system of a said capital, and funny enough these capitals do not carry any shields at all.

In a story, reasonable to present standards, fighters are sent and destroyed in hundreds like fleas, and are regarded more as an over-time weapons, than a separate unit on a battle field. That is more of a Master of Orion approach, which I'm also highly fond of.

Some people love Doom Cubes because they are the peak of efficiency in both damage and effort. I would say that is a min/max approach to this game. Nothing wrong with that. It facilitates open range building that does not fit into any category, and defies the standard people have created for Sci-Fi.

Some people despise Doom Cubes because they take next to no effort to build (Borg Cubes being an rare exception) and destroy epic and thoughtful creations instantly. I would say this is a more "story" based approach to the game (RP and the likes). Nothing wrong with that. It facilitates building with style, creativity, and with a end in mind.

I've previously elaborated on the topic of Doom Cubes. Creative people will always try to make their ships look good; for them result overscales the effort. Uncreative people will go for Doom Cubes; for them, the effort is too much of a burden. It has nothing to do with role-playing or Sci-Fi standards.

Of course there are more opinions, there are always more, but this is just an example.

Trying to enforce creative building is as futile as trying to enforce unrealistic balance bias.

This suggestion forum fits more into the story side as I like the idea of a more story based Sci-Fi experience with fighter pilots on the same playing field as frigates so long as it helps the story, and I'd hazard a guess that you prefer a more open range build style that is free form in nature judging by how you speak about the set standards of Sci-Fi.

Starmade in it's foundation is not imposing any standards. There's no standards for anything. This is sandbox. Build what you want, any shape, any size. You spend more, you get more. You have an 10.000t enemy ship - you're supposed to fight it with 10.000 of your own ships, whether it is two ships of 5.000t, or five 2.000t ships, or ten 1.000t ships. Anything is fair. If you're using the right type of ships and weapons, you're at advantage. There's no artificial limitations for what to do and how to build. Capital ships already are facing significant drawbacks from diminishing returns of thrust, power regen and shield capacity.

No matter what illusions you've imposed upon yourself, there's only one significant advantage of big ships - they need only one helmsman. In Starmade it is hard to gather a lot of people to fight together. You'll have to wait for Fleet-AI mechanics to come. Trying to suggest any extreme balance holes prior to that is pointless and will be ignored.

 

[GenericFleetCommander]

I can tell what these arguments are coming from. I just don't see any good ones.

Exactly my point of opinions, it's not your opinion so of course the argument isn't "good" to you. Your opinion is fighters are an over time weapon while mine is that they are quick strike units that can deal precise damage. It's all a matter of how you view things, there is no end all be all answer to what is right for this game.

It has nothing to do with role-playing or Sci-Fi standards.

While it does not have any direct connection, building with either realistic efficiency or beauty does lean to a style of game play. That also being the reason that I stated that those two ideas were but an example and that there are many more reasons that people build in certain ways.

Trying to enforce creative building is as futile as trying to enforce unrealistic balance bias.

The forum you are looking for is here.

You'll have to wait for Fleet-AI mechanics to come.

Ah well, the ideas out there, so it might prove useful later in development.

I have already stated that in the games current state with logic blocks among other problems with this idea that it might be of benefit later in development, maybe when fleet AI comes out. So as it stands the idea is ill suited now but it's out there are could help later in development. Even if it turns out to no be of use, it's better to get those ideas in the air rather than let them occupy our thoughts instead of other ideas. Failure is the only path to success, if this fails and something else succeeds that's better. All the better for the game.

 

[Lecic]

Take Doom Cubes for example.

Some people love Doom Cubes because they are the peak of efficiency in both damage and effort. I would say that is a min/max approach to this game. Nothing wrong with that. It facilitates open range building that does not fit into any category, and defies the standard people have created for Sci-Fi.

Doomcubes are no longer the peak of eficiency. They tend to suffer from generally lower armor ratings, and have weaker directional armor due to it being more costly to coat all of the surface area of the cube.

 

[GenericFleetCommander]

Doomcubes are no longer the peak of eficiency. They tend to suffer from generally lower armor ratings, and have weaker directional armor due to it being more costly to coat all of the surface area of the cube.

It was a example for general speaking as the Doom Cube has gained a very large name, one that I could trust people had heard of. But yes, there are down sides to the Doom Cube, it's just for efficient in terms of designing for a player not concerned about looks.

 

[TheMegiddo]

Giving fighters the ability to destroy capital ships is not the way to balance them. Once fleet-AI gets introduced (and then broken by the next update, if it functioned at all in the first place) Players should be able to use a dozen or so fighters on captial ships. Capital ships with only a few large turrets and/or high-alpha weapons would be at a signifigant disadvantage against swarms of fighters. Additionally, swarms of fighters would have FARRRRR more range than any weapon a single ship could use, just like in real life. At the same time swarms of fighters would require you to pay for the fighters. The only thing about capitals that need to be fixed at this point is the thrust mechanics, because currently a capital ship can still accelerate to top speed in just a few seconds, lagging the server to death, and seriously messing up combat in too many ways to count.

 

[StormWing0]

Well it could be brought as an effect or some kind of sub system that is like an effect but more on the side of an ammo change. That said every weapon has to have a counter of some kind and with no counter + logic auto firing + fleet AI being added at some point + a few other things = very OP very fast.

 

[max stripe]

The gist of the idea is adding a missile type weapon that can pierce shields, but the bigger it is the less powerful it gets respectively. It would support the idea of player driven bombers that can deliver tactical strikes to enemy ships.

I was thinking recently about Star Wars: Empire at War, and how they handled making bombers very useful. They added Plasma (Edit: Proton) Torpedoes that would go through shields and damage the large ship system directly.

I'm not proposing something nearly as powerful. What I propose is this.

-A new weapon with it's respective computer.
-It's properties would include . . .
-Damage in a radius like current missiles (very small)
-A very long reload time (nearly 30 seconds plus at just one block, scales rapidly with more blocks)
-Very high energy cost. (scales rapidly with more blocks)
-Very slow projectile speed. (scales to become slower with more blocks)
-The more blocks you add, the slower the projectile speed but the more damage it does and the larger damage radius it gets.
-Diminishing damage the more powerful the targets shields are. Cannot completely negate damage.
-Attached support systems provide a extremely diminished effect right off the bat and exponentially so for every block placed.

I though of these properties in a way that you can't just slam a massive cannon onto a Titan without creating some way to slow/stop the other ship taking up loads of space on the ship, then the reload time would make it so that it couldn't fire more than once or twice a fight, and finally the speed of the projectile would make it ill suited against anything than large ships. So you have to get up close to use this weapon, making it good for fighters/bombers. And due to it's slow speed, it will take precise aim against a moving target, thus AIs with these bombs attached will either hit hull, non essentials, or nothing at all, and then will need to survive 30 seconds plus to fire again.

I can see two problems, that people will spam it against stations (but missiles will be better at this because of the weapons massive reload time), and that people might use the checker board strategy to fire a large wall at once. The second problem could be removed if there is a de-buff for having too many weapons of this type attached to one system, like decreased performance or extreme energy cost.

That's the idea. Constructive criticism is appreciated greatly.

wanna watch me make it rapid fire and still use low power with a few simple design changes to my ship?
it would be too abusable

 

[lio_oVo_oil]

I like the thought of this, but rather than having a huge debuff (less damage per block added), you make it some kind of super weapon that has a DPS equivalent to the base cannon, but of course much higher alpha, long reload times, and extremely slow projectile speed, making it viable for titan vs. titan, but less viable versus a fighter, or group of spread fighters (I'd assume that since it's a type of explosive, it has a blast radius).

 

[StormWing0]

Thought we still need some gear for smaller craft to make them a bit dangerous if ignored.