General weapon balance suggestion

[jijiji]

Greetings!

//Introduction (not necessary to read, you can pass it)

//Hello! I am not a gamer, but my friend talked me to test this game. Friend told me that some

//time ago more people played this game. I tested this game and I guess why. Now I am developer (of some

//plugins of Minecraft some time ago too) and know some space games and why they’re popular.

//So I am absolutely new here, but tested enough.
//Here is suggestion you might not understand, until you read it full.
//Sorry for bad English.

A lot of people playing Starmade found the same problem: turrets are weak and doing small damage for their size. Some sort of weapons looks like unbalanced. Also, here is a problem that some people makes very big and unkillable ships.

Here is coup of suggestions that should fix it. They are connected and must to be implemented at least most or nothing of them (but you still can include weapon damage fixes). Important to know that something like that is using in some space games with big success!

[Weapon damage blocks]

If you want to make a real turret, you have to place a lot of blocks. Some turrets are also large as ¼ of ship!

Here is a lot of suggestions I’ve seen on forums and heard:

1. Use overdrive effect that already exists (Yes, you can. But when you use it, you can’t add another effects, like stop or EMP. Sometimes it is important and makes me feel illy).

2. Increase block’s dps and power consumption (It would be great if not one thing. It will make ships too small and dangerous. Also, damage blocks will be very cheap for their dps. It would a big mistake. That’s why this suggestion is unreal).

3. Increase/make overdrive effect more powerful (The same as point 1).

4. Don’t change anything (Don’t resolves problem).

Any balance depends on easy rule: when you add (increase) something, you must remove (decrease) something. So, what we have: weapon dps depends on blocks count and power regeneration. If you put all weapon blocks into main ship, you can fire only at front of your ship. But if you build turrets, you have to fill their body full of blocks. That’s why big turrets can’t kill small ships fast.

I suggest the next: To get balance, weapon’s cost mustn’t be changed (or changed a little bit), but turrets have to be more powerful to their size. So, we need to make turrets use blocks of main ship’s (entity’s) body. What do we can:

1. Connect turret’s weapon computer to blocks inside main ship (But it’s hard and weird. I think it’s bad idea, but I have to write it here).

2. Don’t change anything and continue game with big turrets and/or putting turret’s body into ship’s body (But it’s hard to design turret’s body and ship’s body because they may collide).

3. Make some block that will be required to fire and increase dps of weapon blocks. Cost mustn’t be changed to get balance! So, we can add “a required block”. Let’s call it weapon CPU block (you can call it as you want. For example, weapon ammo cargo). For example:

We have 1000 weapon blocks that costs 50000 of resources. If we’ll build turret with them, it will be too big. But if we make 9 CPU blocks required (costs 50 resources) per 1 weapon block, we will have 100 weapon blocks in turret’s body and 900 CPU blocks in ship’s body with same mass, volume and cost (without any big and wrong change of balance). But now we can make turret using just 100 weapon (and 900 CPU blocks inside ship) blocks against 1000! We can use different proportions of weapon to CPU: 1:3, 1:9, 1:50, 1:100. So we can try different ways to get optimal balance. Also, to save weapon’s cost, we shall add different CPU’s types for each weapon. They have to cost the same as weapon blocks or about. Depends on you and others want.

You can ask me how to add it to the game? Way is so easy: add entity’s parameter: CPU (for each weapon if you want to save cost). Adding a new block will add max CPU to an entity. While it activates turret or adds new weapon, it must consume CPU (primary own, secondary carrier’s). If CPU is not enough, weapon can’t fire or reload.

You might be thinking about CPU and your mind is moving to small ships. Currently about making them balanced. I think it’s good idea to add starting CPU to ship core. A nonlinear dependence would be great for CPU too. For example, ship with no CPU blocks will have 100 CPU, ship with 100 CPU blocks will have 1000 CPU, ship with 1000 CPU blocks will have 5000 CPU (or something about).

To prevent players from using ship cores to add cheap CPU, we can allow CPU sharing only from carrier to docked ships. To prevent players from turrets spam, we can block starting CPU for docked ships. To prevent players from dronespam, we can add limitation like “connection’s speed” (adding new block) which will limit amount of drones ship can to control [not necessarily if you won’t add nonlinear dependence to CPU].

But here is another way to do something like this: instead of making starting CPU for ship core and above method to limit amount of drones, we can allow sharing of carrier’s CPU to drones (we can to use limitation “connection’s speed” with success too).

If you want use both ways, drones will use carrier’s CPU and their amount will be limited. So drones will be much smaller with same dps and their damage will depend on their carrier.

I am not sure what to choose, but you can say what you think about it.

[Weapon damage fixes]

When you add (increase) something, you must remove (decrease) something. Cannon/cannon is best and unbalanced now because it has same dps as cannon/anything. When you use cannon/cannon, you will get same dps as cannon/pulse, but much faster reloading. But… it’s hard to shoot small target using cannon/pulse. Here is unbalance, because using of cannon/pulse is more difficult then cannon/cannon, but have the same dps.

Problem is unbalanced dependence of reloading speed and dps.

Loosing rate of fire should increase total dps of weapon, because it’s becomes more difficult to hit small targets and reach enough power (and power capacity) to fire. Fast reloading weapons can hit small and fast targets more easily, then slow reloading. That’s why long reload must have additional positive effect.

[Mining]

This is a part of this suggestion, because it’s connected with. Subject is: I’ve made little miner that can to get 1 amount of resources per second. When I got more resources, I’ve made medium miner which able to harv 100 amount of resources per second. Then I’ve created large miner which able to harv 10000 resources per second (using and worsening planets). And I know that I can mine a bit to make new miner which will able to eat a planet immediately (using rails and logic)! That’s one of all reasons why players build large ships! I got so much resources by mining just one day using mega-miner, which will be enough to make ship with 1000000 mass or may be more! Players don’t want to build small ships because they have full cargo of resources. It doesn’t depend on power or thrust penalties. If players wouldn’t build big ships, they can make a lot of small ships. It will make a lot of lags.

Problem is: mining is too easy while using large miners. Semi-mined planets (and asteroids too) looks miserably. Big miners (a lot of beams) makes a lot of lags for server and client.

To fix the problem I suggests to do next: Needed to prevent players from creating large miners, partial mining of planets. Here are some suggestions from me:

1. Make nonlinear power consumption of salvage modules (But players can avoid it using multiple ship cores).

2. Increase power consumption penalty per salvage group (But players can avoid it using multiple computers).

3. Add alternative way to mine planets. I suggest a passive mining using “extractors”. You can add different methods of extraction to choose: slow and fast. Slow method of extraction will not decrease planet’s resources, but slowly add resources to cargo. Fast method will desolate the planet but extract resources much faster. This mechanics can be implemented in different ways:

a. Adding new blocks “extractor computer” (which must be limited by 1 per planet or planet part) and “extractor module” (not necessary). Putting them on the planet, connecting, configuring and activating will start extraction of resources.

b. Transportable extractor. The same as in “a” point, but extractor computer will be placed at ship. So ship will be able to dock to any planet and mine it.

c. Both “a” and “b”.​

4. Include 1 and/or 2, but prefer players from avoiding nonlinear dependence (connection speed limit might help here to limit amount of mining drones).

If you’ll include all 4 suggestions, players will seek to use extractors against large miners and making lags. And as result, they will want to get more planets and claim more systems.

Slow passive extractors would allow players to get resources without killing server and planets.


The conclusion.

Implementation of above will make a big change in Starmade mechanics and balance. Ships will be able to fire broadside against only front. Turrets will be smaller, but still use the same amount of space, resources and power.


I think it will make this game better. You can brainstorm this. You can give feedback and suggest something. If you agree or not, it doesn’t matter so much. But when you write anything, substantiate it.


Also, if you agree with anything I wrote above, please let others know it by clicking “agree” and voting.

This post is currently zipped, f you need more arguments or images, let me know!

P.S. I am planning to add few another suggestions soon. Sorry for bad English again

 

[KiloZulu]

I've advocated for smaller turrets in the past, but I think that any serious discussion of weapon balance should wait until the beta.

 

[Raisinbat]

3. Make some block that will be required to fire and increase dps of weapon blocks. Cost mustn’t be changed to get balance! So, we can add “a required block”. Let’s call it weapon CPU block (you can call it as you want. For example, weapon ammo cargo). For example:

We have 1000 weapon blocks that costs 50000 of resources. If we’ll build turret with them, it will be too big. But if we make 9 CPU blocks required (costs 50 resources) per 1 weapon block, we will have 100 weapon blocks in turret’s body and 900 CPU blocks in ship’s body with same mass, volume and cost (without any big and wrong change of balance). But now we can make turret using just 100 weapon (and 900 CPU blocks inside ship) blocks against 1000! We can use different proportions of weapon to CPU: 1:3, 1:9, 1:50, 1:100. So we can try different ways to get optimal balance. Also, to save weapon’s cost, we shall add different CPU’s types for each weapon. They have to cost the same as weapon blocks or about. Depends on you and others want.

One thing these sugestions always seem to miss is what happens to big turrets if you do this? Why would anyone make a ship with larger turrets if the small turrets are better, and in this case they are.

The fundamental issue i have with these suggestions is that it's a purely cosmetic thing. Large turrets are much more demanding to design a ship for; you need a socket for the base with optional walkways and enough clearance that the turret doesn't get stuck, while small turrets you just slap onto the hull. Eliminating these design considerations makes the game a lot less fun for those of us who enjoy the mechanical component to shipbuilding rather than pure aesthetics.

That said i WOULD like to see more support blocks for turrets; simply requiring more blocks on the main ship (they don't need to be linked to the turret at all, like mass enhancers) would limit turret sizes by demanding larger ships to support the turrets. What would you think of having the CPU operate as a limiter for turret accuracy/tracking speed ?

You might be thinking about CPU and your mind is moving to small ships. Currently about making them balanced. I think it’s good idea to add starting CPU to ship core. A nonlinear dependence would be great for CPU too. For example, ship with no CPU blocks will have 100 CPU, ship with 100 CPU blocks will have 1000 CPU, ship with 1000 CPU blocks will have 5000 CPU (or something about).

To prevent players from using ship cores to add cheap CPU, we can allow CPU sharing only from carrier to docked ships. To prevent players from turrets spam, we can block starting CPU for docked ships. To prevent players from dronespam, we can add limitation like “connection’s speed” (adding new block) which will limit amount of drones ship can to control [not necessarily if you won’t add nonlinear dependence to CPU].

This would encourage even more megaturrets, same way the power generation does. Main weapons aren't desirable because they're stuck on the inferior powergrid of the main entity, while turrets get the benefits of extra entities with fresh powergrids to exploit. Blocking the starting CPU doesn't prevent resetting the scale, which is where the powercreep lies, not in some static 100 CPU when larger ships would need millions to operate.

This also imposes a massive limit on larger ships if the CPU is nonlinear like this, crippling large ship DPS and further encouraging fleets of smaller ships.

But here is another way to do something like this: instead of making starting CPU for ship core and above method to limit amount of drones, we can allow sharing of carrier’s CPU to drones (we can to use limitation “connection’s speed” with success too).

If you want use both ways, drones will use carrier’s CPU and their amount will be limited. So drones will be much smaller with same dps and their damage will depend on their carrier.

This is absolutely horrible, and should never apply to drones. Good drones are extremely dificult to deal with even if you have dedicated anti-drone weapons on your ship; cannons and beams are completely ineffectual and now you want drones to be 10x stronger? Speed and small size makes them highly resistant against most missile types as well, consider what happens if your ship gets swarmed by 100 x 50 mass drones using EMP beams. That's already a horrible position and making it 10 times worse wont help anyone; you could fit 8mil emp damage in that i think with current settings, 80mil emp drone army? NOPE.

When you add (increase) something, you must remove (decrease) something. Cannon/cannon is best and unbalanced now because it has same dps as cannon/anything. When you use cannon/cannon, you will get same dps as cannon/pulse, but much faster reloading. But… it’s hard to shoot small target using cannon/pulse. Here is unbalance, because using of cannon/pulse is more difficult then cannon/cannon, but have the same dps.

Problem is unbalanced dependence of reloading speed and dps.

Loosing rate of fire should increase total dps of weapon, because it’s becomes more difficult to hit small targets and reach enough power (and power capacity) to fire. Fast reloading weapons can hit small and fast targets more easily, then slow reloading. That’s why long reload must have additional positive effect.

A few additions to this. Power regen is relatively cheap compared to power storage. When you're getting 500+e/sec per block, you can break down the powergrid cost of weapons based on their delay like this:

• 0.1 sec delay = 0.025 capacitors per reactor / weapon block
  
• 1 sec delay = 0.25 capacitors per reactor
  
• 4 sec delay = 1 capacitors per reactor
  
• 16 sec delay = 4 capacitors per reactor
  
• 45 sec delay = 12 capacitors per reactor

So a 45 second delay weapon requires 12 times as much space as a 1 second delay does. This is the much bigger issue with slow firing weapons, along with the retarded damage modelling, making 100k+ damage cannon and beams weapons lose 99% or more of their damage. High speed is indeed easier to lead, but turrets are usually AI controlled and AI doesn't care.

I would like to see a change in the scaling of weapon blocks; giving smaller weapons higher damage and power cost, BUT greatly reduced range, like 50m range for a 1/1/1 weapon, logarithmicly scaling up to 100% range at 1000/1000/1000. This would give smaller turrets the ability to inflict a lot more damage, but only at extremely close range.

 

[KiloZulu]

Perhaps the real problem is that blocks are "too big." When a block is 1 m in size, it means that everything on a ship becomes bulky. I'm not saying Schine should change this, I'm just making an observation of how it impacts turret designs. Really, turrets aren't a big deal on titan-sized ships, imho, but the smaller the ship gets, the harder it is to make an effective turret that isn't comically bulky. Players are often trying to replicate a design from their favorite sci-fi world, but those designs (often) do not translate into a block game like StarMade. I understand how that can get frustrating for players.

 

[madman Captain]

I've advocated for smaller turrets in the past, but I think that any serious discussion of weapon balance should wait until the beta.

Weaponbalancing has to furfill three tasks:
1. Make them balanced, give them all the same rights to exist .
2. Give them tasks, give them pros and cons to make them useful against specific targets (AMS, Anti Fighter, Anti Capital, Anti Shield, etc.)
3. Make them unique. The current weaponsystem fail so hard in this. Example with cannons: you have a sniper, a Shotgun and a normal Cannon
witch need two differend slave systems just to alter the Firerate! not the dps just the firerate.

but turrets are usually AI controlled and AI doesn't care.

AI Accuracy can be inproved to give them the "chance" of failing. But this is someting for the late Alpha, early Beta of the game.

I would like to see a change in the scaling of weapon blocks; giving smaller weapons higher damage and power cost, BUT greatly reduced range, like 50m range for a 1/1/1 weapon, logarithmicly scaling up to 100% range at 1000/1000/1000. This would give smaller turrets the ability to inflict a lot more damage, but only at extremely close range.

I really like this concept. I hope the devs has some plans in this way or will read this and think about this.

Perhaps the real problem is that blocks are "too big." When a block is 1 m in size, it means that everything on a ship becomes bulky. I'm not saying Schine should change this, I'm just making an observation of how it impacts turret designs. Really, turrets aren't a big deal on titan-sized ships, imho, but the smaller the ship gets, the harder it is to make an effective turret that isn't comically bulky. Players are often trying to replicate a design from their favorite sci-fi world, but those designs (often) do not translate into a block game like StarMade. I understand how that can get frustrating for players.

Good point. Games like Empyrion and Space Engineers use different sized blocks for different structures like Fighters and Capital ships.

 

[Raisinbat]

Players are often trying to replicate a design from their favorite sci-fi world, but those designs (often) do not translate into a block game like StarMade. I understand how that can get frustrating for players.

I understand this too, but i wish people would let starmade be starmade and not just a replica gallery for their favorite sci-fi drug

 

[StarWars1981]

-snippety-


Good point. Games like Empyrion and Space Engineers use different sized blocks for different structures like Fighters and Capital ships.

So, Schine I believe has taken issue with this in the past, as does much of the community.

StarMade is NOT Space Engineers or Empyrion, it is StarMade, and we do not care what the other games do. Learn from them, yes, emulate what they do right, well, maybe-kinda-sort of, but mostly, they are different games.
In SM, everything IS in m^3 blocks; it will remain that way, the devs have said so; and you must build around it.
I have built reasonably powerful turrets with my limited experience, I have seen turrets built to decimate ships far larger than anything I've built in one hit. You just have to work with it.
Sci-Fi is different because in most sci-fi genres the turrets CAN depend on the main ship for storing its firepower (ammunition bunkers inside the ship, power capacitors for lasers that are limited only by that capacity, etc.); in SM you cannot depend on that for most of your applications and must instead work around the turret's limitations, rather than the ship's.

As for the OP ... I believe weapons balance could use changes, but adding more blocks is unnecessary, I believe. Adding cross-entity linking (perhaps using effect ratios; you can only double the turret's usefulness w/ blocks aboard ship) would help here - perhaps connecting the blocks and computer (CPU aboard turret of course) to the turret docks (and the turret docks to each other) would work. However, I don't think it's truly necessary, it's just a way to emulate Sci-Fi, and I don't know how much emulating the devs want to do. In Sci-Fi, turrets are effective; in SM, not as effective in terms of volume, but still powerful if built correctly.

 

[DrTarDIS]

I recommend you look into custom block config.

Scaling weapon block's mass by any factor along with their DPS and DPE should maintain ship balance while still shrinking ship/ turret size a bit.

You could also make the "support" effects exponentialcurved rather than linear: complex weapons are smalller but take more power to run. This would be a fun enginneering change imho.

I dont know if group dimensions should have an additional effect on draw, but there'ss a certain elegance to having the shape you build have an effect.

 

[jijiji]

One thing these sugestions always seem to miss is what happens to big turrets if you do this? Why would anyone make a ship with larger turrets if the small turrets are better, and in this case they are.

The fundamental issue i have with these suggestions is that it's a purely cosmetic thing. Large turrets are much more demanding to design a ship for; you need a socket for the base with optional walkways and enough clearance that the turret doesn't get stuck, while small turrets you just slap onto the hull. Eliminating these design considerations makes the game a lot less fun for those of us who enjoy the mechanical component to shipbuilding rather than pure aesthetics.

That said i WOULD like to see more support blocks for turrets; simply requiring more blocks on the main ship (they don't need to be linked to the turret at all, like mass enhancers) would limit turret sizes by demanding larger ships to support the turrets. What would you think of having the CPU operate as a limiter for turret accuracy/tracking speed ?

But some players build something like this and. Of course it is awful, but you can use different proportions.

For example having 1 weapon block to 1 CPU block will not affect at turret's size much. But players will not dent turret to ship. I am not suggesting you to connect weapon computer to CPU blocks. I suggests just to add parameter CPU that will be increased by CPU blocks and used by weapon computers. It's like permanent power consumption to keep weapon computer connected. I will repeat: This change will not effect on total amount of blocks needed, cost, power consumption and dps. I will just move some blocks inside ship.

Also, we can add something like accuracy. But tracking speed depends on rail mass enhancers at the moment.

This would encourage even more megaturrets, same way the power generation does. Main weapons aren't desirable because they're stuck on the inferior powergrid of the main entity, while turrets get the benefits of extra entities with fresh powergrids to exploit. Blocking the starting CPU doesn't prevent resetting the scale, which is where the powercreep lies, not in some static 100 CPU when larger ships would need millions to operate.

We can make power penalty include docked turrets. So if your ship have already 2 m power regen, adding the same amount of power reactors to a turret placed on this ship woun't add 2m more, it will just add about 100k power regen. So avoiding power regen penalty will be not possible and players will not build turrets with power reactors. Also, it will make players to think about building smaller ships. I can add it to the main post.

This is absolutely horrible, and should never apply to drones. Good drones are extremely dificult to deal with even if you have dedicated anti-drone weapons on your ship; cannons and beams are completely ineffectual and now you want drones to be 10x stronger? Speed and small size makes them highly resistant against most missile types as well, consider what happens if your ship gets swarmed by 100 x 50 mass drones using EMP beams. That's already a horrible position and making it 10 times worse wont help anyone; you could fit 8mil emp damage in that i think with current settings, 80mil emp drone army? NOPE.

1. Drones can be limited in their amount, so you will not build 100 x 50 mass drones. If you can't have more then 20 drones (for example) you will not build them with 50 mass.
2. As I said, you can use different proportions. So 1 weapon to 1 CPU will not change their size a lot.
3. You can add penalty for sharing carrier's CPU for drones.
4. This suggestion (only about CPU sharing to drones) is unnecessary and I've write it to brainstorm this.

A few additions to this. Power regen is relatively cheap compared to power storage. When you're getting 500+e/sec per block, you can break down the powergrid cost of weapons based on their delay like this:

• 0.1 sec delay = 0.025 capacitors per reactor / weapon block
  
• 1 sec delay = 0.25 capacitors per reactor
  
• 4 sec delay = 1 capacitors per reactor
  
• 16 sec delay = 4 capacitors per reactor
  
• 45 sec delay = 12 capacitors per reactor

So a 45 second delay weapon requires 12 times as much space as a 1 second delay does. This is the much bigger issue with slow firing weapons, along with the retarded damage modelling, making 100k+ damage cannon and beams weapons lose 99% or more of their damage. High speed is indeed easier to lead, but turrets are usually AI controlled and AI doesn't care.

I would like to see a change in the scaling of weapon blocks; giving smaller weapons higher damage and power cost, BUT greatly reduced range, like 50m range for a 1/1/1 weapon, logarithmicly scaling up to 100% range at 1000/1000/1000. This would give smaller turrets the ability to inflict a lot more damage, but only at extremely close range.

Range solution can be added as well too. I gtg now, but will be back soon. I will add it to the main post.

 

[Raisinbat]

But some players build something like this and. Of course it is awful, but you can use different proportions.

For example having 1 weapon block to 1 CPU block will not affect at turret's size much. But players will not dent turret to ship. I am not suggesting you to connect weapon computer to CPU blocks. I suggests just to add parameter CPU that will be increased by CPU blocks and used by weapon computers. It's like permanent power consumption to keep weapon computer connected. I will repeat: This change will not effect on total amount of blocks needed, cost, power consumption and dps. I will just move some blocks inside ship.

Also, we can add something like accuracy. But tracking speed depends on rail mass enhancers at the moment.

Looks like a can/can turret... The reason a lot of small turrets are so useless is because people insist on fitting every single one of them with can/can, which are only functional with thousands of blocks. Can/pul, beam/pul, can/beam and beam/beam turrets work much better as small setups, but wont work well as large turrets. By scaling turrets up, you're making those turrets pointless, because can/can is much better and only slightly larger. Can/pul only needs 60 blocks to get 40block penetration, how much smaller do you want ship to ship weapons to be?

People latch onto some stupid sci-fi convention of small machinegun turrets being used for defence and replicate that on their ships, instead of looking at how starmade works and designing their ships accordingly. In trying to force sci-fi aesthetics onto starmade you're undermining the game's mechanics, that's why all these "smaller turrets" threads are dumb: you're removing mechanical complexity from starmade in order to have your ships look the way you want, and starmade badly needs more GOOD complexity in ship design.

 

[Winterhome]

Looks like a can/can turret... The reason a lot of small turrets are so useless is because people insist on fitting every single one of them with can/can, which are only functional with thousands of blocks. Can/pul, beam/pul, can/beam and beam/beam turrets work much better as small setups, but wont work well as large turrets. By scaling turrets up, you're making those turrets pointless, because can/can is much better and only slightly larger. Can/pul only needs 60 blocks to get 40block penetration, how much smaller do you want ship to ship weapons to be?

People latch onto some stupid sci-fi convention of small machinegun turrets being used for defence and replicate that on their ships, instead of looking at how starmade works and designing their ships accordingly. In trying to force sci-fi aesthetics onto starmade you're undermining the game's mechanics, that's why all these "smaller turrets" threads are dumb: you're removing mechanical complexity from starmade in order to have your ships look the way you want, and starmade badly needs more GOOD complexity in ship design.

The underhull turret in that picture is the size it takes to do enough damage to reliably break one adv. armor block and a handful of system blocks behind it with each of two bullets. That's not a lot of damage these days, since people have finally started using thicker armor.

I appreciate that it takes a lot of design effort to make something that can turn and has a reasonable amount of gun elevation while still being very small, myself, but I would very much prefer if we had the ability to put turret weapon modules in the turret base instead of cramming them all in the barrel.



From The Depths is a good example of a game that handles its turrets very, very well. The barrel is only used for shooting the projectile - nothing more. Projectile properties are all based in the machinery that's generally found inside the main turret base, similarly to how it's done in reality.

If we had the ability to make cylindrical turret bases packed with weapon modules, then we could just as easily have very small above-hull turret barrels that look good and work well. Thanks to the way that projectiles don't damage the mothership, a tiny above-hull turret barrel being damaged lightly would potentially completely disable the turret, whereas a turret with its modules in the barrel wouldn't be wrecked by a single cannon bullet, so it's relatively balanced by existing mechanics.

I don't like this CPU idea. I just want to be able to put my functional bits somewhere hidden instead of having to rely on gigantic barrels.

 

[Raisinbat]

The underhull turret in that picture is the size it takes to do enough damage to reliably break one adv. armor block and a handful of system blocks behind it with each of two bullets. That's not a lot of damage these days, since people have finally started using thicker armor.

Yes, for a can/can turret. This is the size of a can/pul able to do the same:

Spoiler: i'm sorry!

i know its shit i just threw this together in a few minutes and i'm terrible with easthetics DX

Point is this is the size of an ACTUAL small turret, designed with starmade's mechanics in mind, hardly gargantuan nonsense in need of fixing... Here's the penetration per shot:

Although that's just standard armor, it can handle a couple of advanced armor easily enough i think (2x 5k punchthrough projectiles.) This is far from the smallest you can do as well since it's self-sustaining with power and i know better aesthetic builders than me can easily cut the size in half with clever tricks and a more condensed system layout, or simply switching to overdrive passive.

Point is, that's the size of a small turret, that effectively deals with moderate sized targets. People aren't asking for small turrets to be viable, because they are, they're specifically asking for small can/can turrets to be viable, which is the bullshit.

I appreciate that it takes a lot of design effort to make something that can turn and has a reasonable amount of gun elevation while still being very small, myself, but I would very much prefer if we had the ability to put turret weapon modules in the turret base instead of cramming them all in the barrel.

I don't really have much of a counterargument here other than it's powercreep and i hate powercreep, but i think there might be some technical issues with it. Not a programmer, but i think it has to do with each entity being loaded by the CPU at a time so you don't have access to information on a different entity without moving data back and forth which is really horrible for performance. Don't quote me on that though...

It's still a massive size reduction for turrets, and i like the current size. I agree it would be nice to have more stuff we can fit in the base instead of only allowing power systems though.

It also enables moving the support to a fixed dock under the turret that doesn't need to move if you just skip having a base.

If we had the ability to make cylindrical turret bases packed with weapon modules, then we could just as easily have very small above-hull turret barrels that look good and work well.

Again, starmade doesn't need smaller turrets. This is only an issue for can/can, if people would use more appropriate weapons instead of whatever has the most pews this wouldn't be an issue. You're not just enabling smaller turrets, you're disabling large ones with this. It's not hard to accomodate a massive base, you can recess it all you want, it's the turret head that's the problem.

Thanks to the way that projectiles don't damage the mothership, a tiny above-hull turret barrel being damaged lightly would potentially completely disable the turret, whereas a turret with its modules in the barrel wouldn't be wrecked by a single cannon bullet, so it's relatively balanced by existing mechanics.

This does not line up with reality; even huge turrets are rapidly disabled in combat. I've had missile volleys strip every single turret from 300k mass ship in 5 seconds, by a 80k mass ship, which is why suggesting no shielding for turrets is fucking insane. Smaller turrets are inherently better for survivability because there's less to hit, and they can be tucked away much more easily.

If there are going to be smaller turrets, what happens to the current smallest effective ones, and the current big ones? You can make effective smaller turrets, so smaller turrets are perfectly viable. If you reduce the size, these turrets are going to be PD size, and current large turrets will be comically oversized. Again, reducing barrel size makes the mechanical challenge of larger turrets moot.

 

[Winterhome]

even huge turrets are rapidly disabled in combat.

Not sure what kinds of turrets you're making, but I've only ever had basic hulled turrets get shot off in seconds.

Most of my capital turrets survive just as long as the main ship does, if not longer, simply because I bother putting a little bit of armor on them.

 

[Raisinbat]

Not sure what kinds of turrets you're making, but I've only ever had basic hulled turrets get shot off in seconds.

wasn't my ship being shot at, but this one NFD Cherokee, CA-122B Heavy Cruiser

Most of my capital turrets survive just as long as the main ship does, if not longer, simply because I bother putting a little bit of armor on them.

MUST. RESIST. DERAILING. THREAD. WITH. ARMOR. ARGUING.