How do you make AMS turrets look good?

[Tamren Shade]

How do you make AMS turrets sexy? Is that even possible?

I'm trying to upgrade the AMS array on my current WIP ship to twin barreled turrets, and I'm having a hell of a time making them look good. I can nail functional, no problem, I just can't them to look decent.

Hmm, Has anyone made a quad barrel AMS turret, or is that going to be pushing the projectile count way too high for SM?

 

[alterintel]

Wow, It's funny that you use those exact works:
How to make a Very Low Profile (Sexy) Anti-Missile Turret

 

[KiloZulu]

A typical AMS turret for me, particularly on smaller ships, is a twin barrel. Each barrel consists of two cannon blocks in front, a cannon computer behind, and the ship core and a colored light block at the back. The bobby AI and the docking block are set beneath the cannon computer. I put some hull wedge along the outer sides of the barrel from the cannon computer back to give the turret more shape, and that's about it.

I have an AMS turret that is actually one turret stacked on top of another, making it a quad-barrel that can potentially fire on two separate targets at once. It's as compact as I could make it and maintain the clearances necessary for the barrels swinging around one another. I think it turned out pretty sleek and sexy, and it's become something of a standard on my ships. I am tentative about AMS turrets at the moment, however. With the possibility that missiles may get hit points, the single cannon-cannon designs may become obsolete. Out of concern for this, I recently made a battleship that had AMS turrets that did 100 damage per shot. If that turns out to be overkill, I can always switch them over to an anti-fighter role.

 

[Edymnion]

Here's mine:
Example Low Profile PDT

I make mine look like rivets or generic decorative hull bumps to hide them. That way I can make an "armor plate" section, and put PDTs all the way around the edges to look like rivets/bolts "holding the plate down" without making it obvious that the entire ship is freaking covered in PDTs (Point Defense Turrets).

Hmm, Has anyone made a quad barrel AMS turret, or is that going to be pushing the projectile count way too high for SM?

Big thing with PDTs is their aim. Missiles are only one block in size, so if you have multiple outputs that aren't side by side, you can literally shoot on either side of the missile because the AI is aiming straight for it. Mine up there has two barrels, but only one of them actively fires.

If you want a wider field of fire, you're going to have to waffle it with staggered layers for a solid field of fire or have LOTS of computers for individual arrays, and at that point you're looking at quite the large and beefy looking PDT.

I much prefer a single line of fire machine gun turret. Seems to do the job just as well for a lot less blocks.

 

[madman Captain]

Works for larger ships

 

[Dr. Whammy]

My older ships used to have point defense 'wings' to give them a slight aerodynamic appearance.

 

[Panpiper]

Several people have posted responses with advice about making PD turrets sexy. My answer to the question is, I don't.

People think that because the essential core blocks of a point defense turret are few, and that because such a turret can be tiny, that it therefor 'must' be tiny. Assuming that it is to be tiny, they make absolutely zero effort to protect it, because such protection would make it 'not' tiny. Point Defense turrets can be protected, they need not be tiny, and in my opinion, the survival of point defense turrets in battle is crucial and that therefor, point defense turrets 'should' be protected and should 'not' be tiny.

Furthermore, the profusion of turrets is a major cause of server lag, most especially when it comes to the quantities of point defense turrets people like to put on their ships. If we are to constrain ourselves to a reasonable limit on turret profusion, it behooves us to make those turrets as survivable as possible. Point defense turrets should not be thought of as disposable chaff to be lost the instant shields go down, and that most emphatically is what virtually all PD turrets are these days. Virtually all of them will be swept clean off a hull by the smallest of swarmer.

I take a very different approach. I still put a fair quantity of PD on my ships, indeed I am sadly slightly infamous for putting rather ridiculous quantities of PD on my ships. But on ships large enough to handle a bit of weight (pretty much anything over 1000K mass), I put on PD that can take hits and keep on fighting. Certainly a hit from a large weapon designed to punch through pierce hardened advanced armor and do damage beneath is going to damage or take out one of my PD turrets, but that is not typically what strips the PD off of most people's hulls. It is rather one of the multitude of small swarmer warheads that gets through, splash damage from nearby missile hits, the pitterpatter of smaller, rapid fire cannon, and the like.

Enter the Armored Point Defense Turret.

Obviously this is a good bit larger than a typical point defense turret, and I probably could have made a few decorative choices beyond a red armor block for a firing aperture, but this turret is designed to be supremely functional. Every single interior component is protected all around by advanced armor, and there is extra basic hull to pad it's AHP pool. I even put punch and pierce defensive passives on it anticipating that at some point, the AI would get smart enough to turn them on. Because it has the room, it is actually an overdrive cannon, again anticipating that at some point, the HP of missiles may be tied to their power.

Another reason I didn't decorate it is because it is a ball turret. This turret cannot get stuck on the hull or itself, there are zero possible collisions. This both keeps it in the fight and reduces server lag. I could not create a decorative projecting barrel without creating collision.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Several people ave posted responses with advice about making PD turrets sexy. My answer to the question is, I don't.

People think that because the essential core blocks of a point defense turret are few, and that because such a turret can be tiny, that it therefor 'must' be tiny. Assuming that it is to be tiny, they make absolutely zero effort to protect it, because such protection would make it 'not' tiny. Point Defense turrets can be protected, they need not be tiny, and in my opinion, the survival of point defense turrets in battle is crucial and that therefor, point defense turrets 'should' be protected and should 'not' be tiny.

Furthermore, the profusion of turrets is a major cause of server lag, most especially when it comes to the quantities of point defense turrets people like to put on their ships. If we are to constrain ourselves to a reasonable limit on turret profusion, it behooves us to make those turrets as survivable as possible. Point defense turrets should not be thought of as disposable chaff to be lost the instant shields go down, and that most emphatically is what virtually all PD turrets are these days. Virtually all of them will be swept clean off a hull by the smallest of swarmer.

I take a very different approach. I still put a fair quantity of PD on my ships, indeed I am sadly slightly infamous for putting rather ridiculous quantities of PD on my ships. But on ships large enough to handle a bit of weight (pretty much anything over 1000K mass), I put on PD that can take hits and keep on fighting. Certainly a hit from a large weapon designed to punch through pierce hardened advanced armor and do damage beneath is going to damage or take out one of my PD turrets, but that is not typically what strips the PD off of most people's hulls. It is rather one of the multitude of small swarmer warheads that gets through, splash damage from nearby missile hits, the pitterpatter of smaller, rapid fire cannon, and the like.

Enter the Armored Point Defense Turret.

Obviously this is a good bit larger than a typical point defense turret, and I probably could have made a few decorative choices beyond a red armor block for a firing aperture, but this turret is designed to be supremely functional. Every single interior component is protected all around by advanced armor, and there is extra basic hull to pad it's AHP pool. I even put punch and pierce defensive passives on it anticipating that at some point, the AI would get smart enough to turn them on. Because it has the room, it is actually an overdrive cannon, again anticipating that at some point, the HP of missiles may be tied to their power.

Another reason I didn't decorate it is because it is a ball turret. This turret cannot get stuck on the hull or itself, there are zero possible collisions. This both keeps it in the fight and reduces server lag. I could not create a decorative projecting barrel without creating collision.

Aha!!! The man who started my micro-turret madness... I have to side with you on this idea. Leaving your PD turrets unprotected is just asking for trouble.

My ships average about 100 in length so my turrets tend to be small. However, it should be noted that both my point defense wings and my newer compact AMS units are almost completely covered on all sides in advanced armor. While I have sacrificed some defense for aesthetics, the decrease in survivability is minimal and I find that only a nuke blast (with my shields down) or a direct hit from a light/medium missile will disable the turret.

Although I've never actually fought one, your Marauder pirate craft have heavily influenced the way I outfit my ships; especially with regard to point defense. I tend to use a 'safety in numbers' type strategy for point defense; utilizing a minimum of 8 (but as many as 20) light armored PD turrets, often disguised as part of my ships' engine nacelles to provide complete 360 degree anti-missile coverage.

Sometimes I 'spar' with AI controlled copies of my ships and as a result of this style of outfitting, I've learned to not be so dependent on missiles to get the job done.

 

[KiloZulu]

Point defense turrets should not be thought of as disposable chaff to be lost the instant shields go down, and that most emphatically is what virtually all PD turrets are these days. Virtually all of them will be swept clean off a hull by the smallest of swarmer.

My own approach is to make sure that my ships have strong shields with fast recharge. If I see that an enemy is taking my shield down, and my own weapons aren't well ahead in the game, my focus is on getting out. If I lose any hull I feel that I've lost the battle. I'm old school in that regard, since losing hull used to mean a time-consuming effort to replace the damaged blocks, trying to figure out what used to be in that missile crater, or if there are missing blocks hidden behind the hull.

My focus is largely on smaller ships, too, so I expect that I'm going to be outgunned frequently. My PDT's are simply there to give me extra time to spool up the FTL. As I mentioned above, my last large ship had quite substantial turrets, that would be more similar to what you describe. I had the size to go big, and I did. Most players who've seen the ship assume that the PDT turrets are actually meant for fighter defense.
[doublepost=1480609633,1480609307][/doublepost]Oh, I've also started to put a wider variety of PDT on my ships. I used to rely entirely on can+can guns, but my last couple ships I've added can+can, beam+can, and flak guns. It means that the turrets engage at a variety of ranges to ensure that they're not all focusing on the same target.

 

[Panpiper]

Oh, I've also started to put a wider variety of PDT on my ships. I used to rely entirely on can+can guns, but my last couple ships I've added can+can, beam+can, and flak guns. It means that the turrets engage at a variety of ranges to ensure that they're not all focusing on the same target.

I understand that having different weapons with different aim points on the same turret can cause issues with the AI's ability to aim. The key here might be to have the varied systems on different turrets. Also, I believe that beams, as in beam/cannon, cannot destroy missiles, only cannon can do so.

 

[KiloZulu]

I understand that having different weapons with different aim points on the same turret can cause issues with the AI's ability to aim. The key here might be to have the varied systems on different turrets. Also, I believe that beams, and in beam/cannon, cannot destroy missiles, only cannon can do so.

Yeah, I've never mixed weapon systems on turrets. I create individual turrets of each type.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I understand that having different weapons with different aim points on the same turret can cause issues with the AI's ability to aim. The key here might be to have the varied systems on different turrets. Also, I believe that beams, and in beam/cannon, cannot destroy missiles, only cannon can do so.

This is true. The best way to do a variable range AMS is to line up the different weapon systems on the same barrel axis. For example. For a long range detection system, place a cannon+cannon computer system and a cannon+beam system. Place a cannon block linked to your C+C primary then place a cannon block linked to you C+B primary right behind it. Link a cannon block to your C+C secondary and a beam block linked to your C+B secondary. As long as the cannon blocks for your primaries are adjacent to each other (one right in front of the other) you can place your secondary blocks anywhere and you'll end up with a C+C AMS gun with a long range "spotter rifle" for long range detection. Aiming doesn't seem to be affected.