Buff warhead damage/radius poll [Remastered]

[kulbolen]

alright then well continue here.

you didnt counter your totally incorrect numbers on ion dps. a 400k ion dps will wreck a 200k shield regen (the number you chose to list), easily breaking shields. its not semantics at all, its simply facts that you dont care to address.

1) if you need additional power for the extra dps, ad additional power. its very easy.

2) you can easily hit 100:1 dps while retaining 100:1 shield capacity and 2+ thrust. (to mass) i can prove it because most of my smal lships fit this description.

3) youre the one who specified in meters instead of mass. i have a 1k mass ship thats 100 meters long, and very thin and flat, needlelike. does this make it a big ship or a small ship? its 1k mass regrdless.

none of these coments actually rebutted anything i said, and your own example of dps can rop the shield recharge you listed lmao.
[doublepost=1492376795,1492376443][/doublepost]ftr, i addressed your arguments very specifically and did not intentionally misrepresent anything; using the word strawman isnt a magic card to dismiss any argument you cant refute.

 

[Ciggofwar]

It's a griefer's tool, leave it as is!

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Like I said; straw man argument.

When you can actually back up what you said about the two ships in the picture without deviating to your own spin on things; I'll be happy to listen. Until that happens, you're wasting your time.
[doublepost=1492377010,1492376901][/doublepost]

It's a griefer's tool, leave it as is!

Noted. This is exactly what happened in EVERY other discussion we had about redoing warheads. Someone would appear, and change the subject with an argument.

 

[kulbolen]

i didnt claim anything about the 2 ships in the picture. i claimed that using the concept you proposed with that picture, a small ship of that size could potentially be a threat. i know nothing and care not about the exact builds in the picture. you are literally doing the definition of strawman while claiming i am.

notice how i keep mentiong "if built well" when i talk about small ships? im not referring to a specific ship. i can offer up my own as proof of concept. maybe you should read my words.
[doublepost=1492377321,1492377245][/doublepost]and if you were paying attention, i was agreeing w you about warheads while making a silly joke about your picture.
[doublepost=1492377437][/doublepost]btw:

There is no ship in the 100 meter range that can generate enough power

thats you. you said that. you dont get to say its only about your ship, when you clearly understood it was broad.

 

[Ciggofwar]

Until there is a countermeasure for them in place that works, it will stop the grifters who invest nothing into said game for a quick "high" you know the type !

 

[kulbolen]

the truth is you won't be able to achieve what you're saying without...

move those goalposts

 

[Dr. Whammy]

move those goalposts

Sorry dude, you can't troll me. I literally have no fucks to give. Bye.

 

[kulbolen]

Sorry dude, you can't troll me. I literally have no fucks to give. Bye.

way to call me a troll while saying im wrong without actually being able to back up anything you say, all the while using debate jargon on me. bye =D

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Until there is a countermeasure for them in place that works, it will stop the grifters who invest nothing into said game for a quick "high" you know the type !

Yeah. And that's really the core issue; we have malicious people seeking cheap thrills in what is essentially a creative sandbox. Seriously; these people play too much Eve Online.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Not all stations are protected by homebase armor, factions can build more than one station.

Also the only ships that present any difficulty to hit and ships that are within the 5k mass range, anything larger and its quite easy to hit, especialy if you are using a cloaker and you presence is not known so your opponent is making no attempt as evasive movement.



The fact that warheads present the oppurtunity to be used in ways that are exploitative and blatantly overpowered in the first place is the problem, its got nothing to do with player behavour.



1. Ion Pulse Weapons from Moo2 does not completely ignore them and do direct damage to systems, infact the description on the wiki states "The Ion Pulse Beam fires a violent wave of charged particles designed to overload ship shields and disrupt control systems" which would indicate that the Ion Pulse Weapons are a form of EWAR, warheads are not EWAR, they are explosive devices.

2. Transphasic Torpedos in Star Trek lore were also developed in an alternate timeline, alternate timelines do not exist in StarMade and such your comparrison is not applicable to this scifi called StarMade

3. And ALL Domion weaponry was highly advanced in comparrison to the level of technoligy the federation possed, which would also affect shielding capabilites of federation ships. Unlike Star Trek, everybody uses the same weapons, shields and technoligy in general in StarMade, do again, your comparrison is not applicable.



On another note, perhaps consider that you are talking to someone who has played the game since 2013 before you attempt to discredit me by saying "You only have 4 messages so your opinion doesnt matter"

You can find me on the Brierie server, I am online a lot, I would love to talk to you about how much more I know about this game then you do, because the simple fact that you think bigger ships are automaticly better ships reflects on how little you know about this game.
[doublepost=1492378999,1492378394][/doublepost]

You are wrong, please learn about power mechanics, your attempt at posturing yourself as someone who knows what they are talking to try and validate a flawed argument is making me loose braincells. If you think a ship less than 100m is incapable of beating ships bigger than itself, then your understanding of StarMade combat as a whole is near zero.



Disagreeing with a exploitative overpowered device that has no place in this game is "changing the subject"

Noted, I will be sure to inform everyone to never criticise ideas they do not agree with and can back up said criticisms with evidence.



I am not even going to try and sugarcoat it anymore.

You are an idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to act like you do.

Come onto Brierie and talk to a man named Veilith, also known as kulbolen and he can explain to you on the server why bigger is not always better, a smaller ship is more than capable of beating a larger ship.

And if you are on the server, I can come along and help Veilith show you right before you eyes examples of ships completely destroying ships 4 times its own size.

The reason I brought up your 4 posts is because you come off like an ass and you've demonstrated that you seem largely ignorant of the other discussions on warheads; all of which addressed size difference, shield piercing and exploitative use. Why you think we somehow aren't aware of and seeking to fix the concerns you've listed is beyond me. What's worse, is you didn't even try to see the other points of view.

You can insult me and try to goad me into a PVP challenge all you like but the fact is, you don't know how to beat these exploits and that bothers you. Did it ever occur to you that you could help brainstorm counters to these exploits you're so bothered by?

 

[Zekester81]

I think warheads could use a little buff. With collision damage on, they are decent if made well. I think mine were 13M long with a rotator triggering a push module(up to 3000 m/s depending on your settings) and an advanced armor cap so it gets penetration before it detonates(5-9 warhead block line in center). I don't use AI to track targets, dumbfire only. I would like to see a "torpedo" mode in the bobby that allows them to be targeted by turrets in AMS mode, but would give them tracking and ramming capabilities. If that were to occur, they would still need a buff, but i think they should lose their shield by-pass capabilities. I think warheads should trigger attack notifications dependent on the faction status of the registered owner.

 

[MacThule]

However now on pre-build it seems we can fleet them and order them to cloak & jam, sure that will up the cost but looking forward to seeing just how small, cheap & stackable I could make those

I've been experimenting with something similar - something along the lines of a jammed torp-mine field that can be ordered to mine different sectors. Only wish I could get the entities to deliberately ram enemies.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I am going to re state my stances on warheads, I am hoping for a valid counter argument but I am expecting a statement with logical fallacies as a response...

More insults? Yeah, you're ass, but it's cool. I don't take it personally. Since you want to get back to the original discussion, I'll play along.

1) Warheads in their current state do not have the power required for their key desired use; combat. Right now they can't be used any other way than exploits and glorified "science experiments". In the past discussions, proposed counters to exploitative behavior included better AI for turrets and the inability to cloak/jam torpedoes once launched. Arguments ensued and an agreement was never reached.

2) You act as if we all voted for 500,000 damage with a 50 meter range. I don't think most players here want that but rather just a weapon that can destroy a small cluster of adv armor blocks. Regarding realism for Sci-fi; Star Trek and Master of Orion 1 and 2 all have plenty of examples of damage making it through the shields. Some instances do hull damage while others do internal/system damage. Star Trek 6 was a good example of this. Master of Orion 2 also has shield piercing modifications for multiple beam weapons as well as a naturally shield-piercing particle beam used by the Antarans. The fact that transphasic torpedoes are future technology does not invalidate their existence in both the show and novelizations. About the exploits. Yes... we heard that one already.

3) That's not a factual statement; so much as you offering your opinion of warheads while completely ignoring our reason for wanting a buff. Many of us want to use them in actual combat. You only see the exploits and haven't even helped brainstorm a fix for them.

4) You have ways to beat bigger ships? Great; we all have tricks up our sleeves. If other players expressed a desire for other combat options which differ from yours, don't be so arrogant to say yours should be the only way allowed. Why even play Starmade if there's only one way to play it? Also, warheads were never posed as a "counter' for titans, they are, at most, a deterrent and apparently a psychological one at that. The fact that you keep bringing up "ignores shields" is additional proof of that.

5) Exploits... You sure like to throw that word around don't you? Herein lies the end of most of your argument. If an unintended defect in a game feature entices people to actively abuse it maliciously while others who possess the same knowledge do not, then that IS a behavioral problem. Did you ever hear the old saying "Don't tempt an honest man?" There's a reason for that and it is that most people have a natural predisposition toward corruption when given sufficient incentive. They BEHAVE in whatever way benefits them most in a given situation and sometimes, for some people, that involves cheating. I find this whole exploit tirade of yours ironic since most games (alphas included) work to patch exploits. Take away the ability or incentive to cheat, then people won't cheat.

6) Your 50% counter-proposal doesn't make any sense. Why would you let some of the warhead damage through the shields and then buff them? Why not just fix the exploits you keep complaining about? Do you even have any ideas about how to do that?

Looking back at this thread; there really isn't much to your argument since you cannot offer any opposition to warheads beyond your dislike of people using exploits. You offered no way to counter said exploits when asked. In fact, you've offered no constructive feedback at all. Instead you came in guns blazing. ...Expecting us to justify a thread that you disagree with.

I look forward to our next exchange. Maybe instead of more insults you'll answer my question. Which is; "How do you propose we remove the ability and incentive for exploitation from warheads?" There are a wealth of good ideas on how to do this. Do you want to discuss them?
[doublepost=1492390870,1492390257][/doublepost]

I think warheads could use a little buff. With collision damage on, they are decent if made well. I think mine were 13M long with a rotator triggering a push module(up to 3000 m/s depending on your settings) and an advanced armor cap so it gets penetration before it detonates(5-9 warhead block line in center). I don't use AI to track targets, dumbfire only. I would like to see a "torpedo" mode in the bobby that allows them to be targeted by turrets in AMS mode, but would give them tracking and ramming capabilities. If that were to occur, they would still need a buff, but i think they should lose their shield by-pass capabilities. I think warheads should trigger attack notifications dependent on the faction status of the registered owner.

I think you might be on to something. Giving a large damage buff with a slight radius buff that scales with group size and loses the shield-bypass might be a solution. The catch is that they would need to be powerful enough to compete with missiles. The question remains; "How powerful?"

+1 on AI turret/ramming configs and on faction responsibility notification. Anonymous attacks should never be allowed.

 

[JinM]

Warheads should be mega buffed, because I miss the "launch torpedos and onehit an enemy ship" game mechanic. Additionally no other sandbox game has real torpedoes atm.

An alternative to warheads would be any other weapon, that would resemble torpedos. I just cant wrapp my head around the fact, that we have no real nukes, that only take up 15x10x10m of space, and do comparable damage. I mean real nukes have a damage radius of >1km but I gladly would be satisfied with a radius of 50m as a game should stay a game and not a simulation. =)

 

[kulbolen]

lollll

 

[Az14el]

Good idea we should all be able to onehit JinM's stuff whenever we want, thanks JinM

I am so fucking sick of people using this example, You can do the exact same thing with regular weapons by putting them on a neutral entity and logic firing, its more effective too because unlike warheads, actual weapons can do more than scratch the paint.

yis but what if buff because thread?

weapons do it "better" right now because a) not many people are willing to redo a laggy amount of warheads and b) warheads are physically slow at chewing through things without build mode help, you know you're preaching to the choir but they do have significant advantages for the odd "malicious" players over regular weapons that should be brought into check before/if any major buffs to their damage happen. Now I'm preaching obvious stuff but only to affirm where I'm going with that.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

How do you guys feel about buffing the warheads in this manner?

- 100-500k damage for a single block
- 15-25m radius
- Stackable so that multiple blocks in a group create a larger explosion.
- Damage from additional blocks gets a scalable 10% penalty (explained below).
- No shield bypass.
- Detonates on contact with anything not in its own docking tree or when shot by any weapon. No collision/clipping glitches.
- Targetable by Bobby AI. Warheads get priority followed by conventional missiles.
- Notifies players of the "presence of armed warheads in the sector", prompting them to scan the area for cloakers.
- Notifies players and their faction of a hostile warhead detonation by showing the warhead's creator and/or pilot(s).

I have a spreadsheet drawn up to show how additional damage could stack as more warhead blocks are added to the group. In this method, the system would become less efficient as block count increases; with a sweet spot for group size falling somewhere between 10-15 blocks; after which the damage addition drops sharply.

At first glance, this looks like it would provide a decent buff without it getting rapidly out hand; ie, someone building a 5000 block torpedo to insta-kill someone. Let me know what you think.

 

[Zekester81]

I wouldn't want them to be nukes. I think a *small* damage increase would be fine, and very little if any radius buff. Perhaps it should increase slightly when collision damage is off in the config. Perhaps the devs should include a slider or input box in the config to allow servers to customize the power of the warhead in accordance to the whims of the player or server owner. With collision damage on, they can leave a nice pocket in solid armor currently. It worked like that several patches ago anyways, but I haven't tested the torp range recently.

To be honest, there is another problem with torpedo impact with collision damage on that is more important, IMO, than it's damage output. Last time I fired one on my range it left a gratifying divot about 5 blocks in in the shape of a cigar roughly about 15 blocks in diameter and about 20 long. The real problem was that while the core was overheating, it did the funky collision thing and both objects were thrown away from each other at high rates of speed. The torp range was a single entity about 1000x100x50 with multiple launcher stations aimed at different armors and ranges. The torp is roughly 13x3x3. The torp should not be able to impart that much inertia into such a large object. If penetrating torps are used against a large ship it would be fire and forget. Forget about finishing the fight, because the large target ship may eventually come to a stop on the other side of the galaxy after being hit with a 50 mass object at high speed.

TLDR; they have a massive clipping issue with collision damage on.

 

[EricBlank]

I didnt think it was possible to get saltier than pure halite, geez guys chill

I think a moderate damage and radius buff would be useful. The exploits are already going to be addressed when the devs get to them or change how things work. The issue with collisions and collision damage seems like a flat out failure of the physics engine, another bug to fix, and I dont think collision damage has been worked on for a long time, but I could be mistaken...

 

[Scypio]

You really should stop to look at warheads like torpedoes, they were not designed to do that we have missiles for that, and look at them as boarding tools to break through doors.