I'd like everyone's opinion on this.

[CyberTao]

Core drilling won't be a problem anymore as soon as the the hitpoint / damage system that Calbiri talked about in the Feb. FAQ is implemented, if that's still in development. If you've listened to (or watched) that, you know that core drilling won't kill ships anymore and instead you'll have to take out the vast majority of the ship's blocks to destroy it.

But what kind of HP system - 3- I've actually heard 2 options (never watched the Q&A)

 

[Keptick]

We could also use a War Thunder style system, where you still get the cursor to move around with, but there is also a reticle where the guns will fire.

That's basically how it works already, except that guns converge on that spot.

 

[MineCatFTW]

That's basically how it works already, except that guns converge on that spot.

But this would work with the proposed system, so we don't have the current problem.

 

[rece ktore leczo]

I support the idea.

But with three small changes (which were already suggested here):

1. Guns still should be able to shoot at different arc (5-10^o may be ok). These arcs may be different for different type of weapon (or adjusted in weapon tab)
2. Turrets connected to the mouse aiming and firing when player use fire. Maybe while changing cockpits, players could steer different turrets, i.e. while looking at lower side, turrets on the bottom would be connected and the rest of them would have AI on.
3. Turrets with lowered accuracy and, as possibly, with lower turning speed.

 

[Majorfatboy]

OP, sounds like you're combining two items in one: Weapon convergence (All weapons firing at the cursor), and the free-floating cursor.

Weapon convergence itself is just fine (in My opinion), it's weapon convergence on a free-floating cursor that's the problem.
I say leave convergence as it is, but lock the cross hair slap-bang to the center of the screen. This way, You can still get your weapons to hit the same point, but now You'll have to move and point your entire ship at said point.

This will have many advantages:
Massive ships with huge fixed guns will have a harder time tracking and coring smaller targets, as the player would have to move Their entire ship at Their target, instead if just mousing over it.
Massive ships will still be able to combat other massive ships, as the target would be large and slow.
Small ships and star fighters would gain use, as they can outmaneuver massive fixed guns, but they themselves would have no problem bringing their fixed guns to bear, something very important in dog-fighting.

In other words, Option three: Keep convergence, lock the cross hair.

 

[Keptick]

From my experience, fighter fights would just last for ever. Already, why two mostly equal fighters end up against each other it s incredibly hard to even crack the shields.

 

[Winterhome]

From my experience, fighter fights would just last for ever. Already, why two mostly equal fighters end up against each other it s incredibly hard to even crack the shields.

Only if neither is using AI :P

 

[Keptick]

Only if neither is using AI :p

Even using turrets (if that's what you meant) and at speeds above 100 already come out as a draw most of the time. I'm talking about the small ships (50-100 mass), not the 4k mass lolfighters.

 

[scagjmboy45]

I don't really want to argue, as I wouldn't mind either outcome, or a mixture of both.
However, a good counterargument would be the phasers on larger ships in the Star Trek universe. Here is the best example I could find; basically, phasers of that type have been shown firing in all logical directions from their source emitter.

 

[Trafalgar]

For antimatter-firing guns, consider that the guns could have a magnetic aiming system which is tweaked on the fly by the weapons computer or circuitry in the guns themselves, to send the antimatter stream towards a particular direction as it is emerging from the gun. Similar things would be possible with other weapons, e.g. dynamic lenses for beam weapons.

In any case, personally I think restricting guns to aiming straight ahead only would make the game less fun for anyone actually trying to hit anything with the guns built into their ship, so I don't understand why anyone would want to do it.

 

[Winterhome]

Even using turrets (if that's what you meant) and at speeds above 100 already come out as a draw most of the time. I'm talking about the small ships (50-100 mass), not the 4k mass lolfighters.

I'm talking about ships being flown by AI, since they're awful at not getting hit. :P

 

[NeonSturm]

So many posts ...

I would like each weapon to have it's own firing arc. The firing arc could be indicated by one or multiple circles in your screen's centre (depending on the number different weapons you can control).

Instead of aiming with your mouse, you should be able to paint targets and a target's depth inside the ship on your target's hull - I don't like aiming AND turning be tied to just one input.

 

[refirendum]

My opinion of this is that mouse-turn would be unrestricted, but mouse-aim would have its cone limited. therefore you'd have 2 cursors, 1 mouse aim cursor and one move cursor. the move and aim cursor would move together, but while the aim cursor stops at the cone limit, the move cursor would be able to move past the cone's limiting circle. firing should still be able to vary its angle.

also, there should be a cone unlock for docking beams so that all weapons are cone-limited, but docking beams are not.

 

[Dragleones]

From my experience, fighter fights would just last for ever. Already, why two mostly equal fighters end up against each other it s incredibly hard to even crack the shields.

The real problem about this is that the weapons of small fighters just do not enough damage, since they have only small amc arrays. I hope that with the rapid cannon in the updated weapon system it will get closer to the point where a series of well placed shots from fighters (vessels with less than 50 mass) actually damages or even destroys another fighter (vessels with less than 50 mass), cause that is the actually point of dogfighting imo.

I don't really want to argue, as I wouldn't mind either outcome, or a mixture of both.
However, a good counterargument would be the phasers on larger ships in the Star Trek universe. Here is the best example I could find; basically, phasers of that type have been shown firing in all logical directions from their source emitter.

I don't want to sound rude, but...
1) if you would have read the first post you would have realized that this topic is related to balancing rather than lore or setting etc.
Therefore noone asked for a argument based on lore or setting etc. .
2) Starmade has (even though its a science fiction themed game) nothing to do with Star Trek. Even further: Starmade also has nothing to do with Halo/Mass Effect/Star Wars or any other science-fiction-theme.
Therefore noone asked for a argument based on a certain science-fiction-theme. (If you want to create playercontent related to any science-science-fiction theme. Fine... (you can even read this on the homepage:

Spoiler: you can even read this on the homepage

Star-Made is a minecraft inspired 3D sandbox space shooter. Play in your own universe or on a multiplayer server to create, discover, destroy, customize, and design your own worlds.

About the actual topic:
I think that removing mouse aiming would be a good balancing approach for bigger vessels, but in favour of the playability i'm against the complete removal.

I would like each weapon to have it's own firing arc. The firing arc could be indicated by one or multiple circles in your screen's centre (depending on the number different weapons you can control).

I think ^this would be a good compromise. Since missiles are usually harder to land they could have bigger arc (5%) than cannons.
I don't know how beams will be treated damagewise, but a fire arc on beams would be pretty broken (considering the instant travel). Beamturrets, etc. would be much more balanced, because they limit the size of the beam-group. (Same with every other shipmounted weapon in comparison to their docked turret version.)
This combined with a slower turning speed on turrets with increasing mass, aswell as less accuracy from the ai would probably result in a much more balanced combat, since Ships basically can't attack smaller ships with their main weapons.

Fighting a certain size of ship would require a certain size of turret.
The shield scaling could be increased slightly and the way ships handle power past 1 million e/sec could be redesigned to even prevent capital ships from becoming to weak. (I never liked the softcap on power regen, since it favours a certain ship size to be effective.)

 

[NeonSturm]

Dog-fighters after WW2 sometimes had an armour plate behind the seat to cover the human pilot and motor in front of it.
I would like light armour with few enough weight on mass-calculations to decorate a fighter but also have heavy armour which is heavy enough to disallow many to be used.
If you would cover/attack the core, you would disable core-drilling as it would even buff the agility if you would destroy the heavier armour around it.

I think it create a nice tactical advantage if you put them into the right places.

I am a bit curious why nobody ever implemented backwards firing cannons in WW2

 

[CyberTao]

The real problem about this is that the weapons of small fighters just do not enough damage, since they have only small amc arrays. I hope that with the rapid cannon in the updated weapon system it will get closer to the point where a series of well placed shots from fighters (vessels with less than 50 mass) actually damages or even destroys another fighter (vessels with less than 50 mass), cause that is the actually point of dogfighting imo.



I don't want to sound rude, but...
1) if you would have read the first post you would have realized that this topic is related to balancing rather than lore or setting etc.
Therefore noone asked for a argument based on lore or setting etc. .
2) Starmade has (even though its a science fiction themed game) nothing to do with Star Trek. Even further: Starmade also has nothing to do with Halo/Mass Effect/Star Wars or any other science-fiction-theme.
Therefore noone asked for a argument based on a certain science-fiction-theme. (If you want to create playercontent related to any science-science-fiction theme. Fine... (you can even read this on the homepage:

About the actual topic:
I think that removing mouse aiming would be a good balancing approach for bigger vessels, but in favour of the playability i'm against the complete removal.

I think ^this would be a good compromise. Since missiles are usually harder to land they could have bigger arc (5%) than cannons.
I don't know how beams will be treated damagewise, but a fire arc on beams would be pretty broken (considering the instant travel). Beamturrets, etc. would be much more balanced, because they limit the size of the beam-group. (Same with every other shipmounted weapon in comparison to their docked turret version.)
This combined with a slower turning speed on turrets with increasing mass, aswell as less accuracy from the ai would probably result in a much more balanced combat, since Ships basically can't attack smaller ships with their main weapons.

Fighting a certain size of ship would require a certain size of turret.
The shield scaling could be increased slightly and the way ships handle power past 1 million e/sec could be redesigned to even prevent capital ships from becoming to weak. (I never liked the softcap on power regen, since it favours a certain ship size to be effective.)

The point of Mention Star Trek was to point out that Sci-fi ships normally don't fire straight ahead - 3- and the Game IS a Sandbox, ergo the ability to make what you want to make could become Compromised, since you could make replica of a ship you wanted.

As well; this "Fighting a certain size of ship would require a certain size of turret." I would have to say not do that. A certain ship design may make it more viable, but I am against making Turrets a requirement to hand certain types of ships. And I would prefer myself if the Soft Cap was lowered, and a greater dependence on Power tanks became prevalent, but that is not the Focus of this topic, so I'll shush hush.

Other then that, I agree on Turret tweaks and maybe Varying arcs - 3- Though I imagine that may be a pain to put in.

 

[Zedrackis]

Turrets are already over powered compared to fixed guns as it is. Removing that ability to flex the gun without moving the ship would just make them more OP.

 

[aceface]

This is just annoying, how do i take my vote back?

 

[tn44]

I'm all for ditching this really. It seems like it would balance the game tremendously. I have, however, voted opposite of this to counteract Aceface voting the wrong way. :P

 

[z1967]

I would be okay with limiting it down to a 25-45 degree angle and keeping convergence. Any farther than that is a no from me.