Recognized Make ship's weapons not go through the ship

[CyberTao]

I enjoy starmade because it does not smother me with artificial restrictions when building ships.
Even with the proposed change we only would have a on block wide barrel leading to the muzzle with the weapon systems contained behind the hull...

Which is ugly as sin with some design styles.

 

[Aecetym]

I will be civil despite your being enormously disingenuous, What is wrong with that ship?

There is nothing wrong with the ship, it's even is/becoming a very beautiful ship tbh. It's an old picture that depicts perfectly the style players used to build with. You clearly didn't see what I was trying to point out.

Look at the front, see the single lines of weaponblocks sticking out the hull? This is totally outdated in terms of ship building but it's exactly what your proposal will translate to basically. And like @NuclearFun already pointed out

... Even with the proposed change we only would have a one block wide barrel leading to the muzzle with the weapon systems contained behind the hull...

Nothing got 'solved' if this would to be put in the game and the 'problem' would still remain only with more restrictions to core feature of the game.

 

[keylan118]

I did in the quote above that one, where I said something like
"Not really, I build my ships with clear cannons, it isn't that complicated and it doesn't really hinder anything."

I kinda gotta agree with your post, except for the bit I am responding to, the complaint of having to redo ships, is completely invalid in an alpha game, there will be times where ships become obsolete, because the game is in development.

I will be civil despite your being enormously disingenuous, What is wrong with that ship?


That is actually one of the only good arguments against this, I didn't think of that at all.

1. Not everyone builds the same
2. Rebuilding ships is still not fun, especially when it is unnecessary. Unnecessary meaning people would just have gun poking out of a hole, making it just a little bit easier, but this would also incentivise shields even more.
3. Calling someone stupid in a polite way is still calling someone stupid.

 

[Blakpik]

3. Calling someone stupid in a polite way is still calling someone stupid.

I never claim to be better than the opposition, only equal.
[DOUBLEPOST=1424254131,1424253788][/DOUBLEPOST]Okay, I admit defeat. Lock it up.
Thanks to all you guys for your points.
Goodbye.
/request lock.

 

[hakkarin]

lol at the people calling this suggestion a "artificial limitation".

Look, I can agree that things should be abstracted to a certain degree. But when I say that I am thinking about things like ships not needing thrusters to be placed on the exact right spot so that your ship doesn't spin out of control. Allowing weapons to fire through your ship just takes sooooooooo much possible strategy out of the game. If weapons can fire through your hull, then there is no reason to not just make every ship a Borg cube.

I don't see having to place my weapons on certain spots as a limitation, but as a challenge.

Not to mention how massively open to abuse it is to allow your weapons to fire through your hulls. What is stopping you from just building your guns inside your ship instead of outside if you can just shoot through yourself anyway? Why make your weapons open to attack when you can do this instead?

I'm sorry guys, but I 100% agree with this suggestion.

EDIT: Not to mention that this also removes a lot of the strategy from combat. There is no point in trying to flank a ship for example if doing it doesn't make you less open to attack from it's turrets. The fight just boils down to who has the most guns and shields.

 

[Snk]

I totally agree with this thread. The main opponents are shipbuilders who don't want to rebuild their ships, which is dumb because they'll probably have to rebuild everything anyways.

 

[hzzzln]

Not to mention how massively open to abuse it is to allow your weapons to fire through your hulls. What is stopping you from just building your guns inside your ship instead of outside if you can just shoot through yourself anyway? Why make your weapons open to attack when you can do this instead?

Well aren't weapons the least vital system on your ship? If I put my weapons at the center of the ship, it just means that other systems are more exposed, which means they get destroyed first. I'd rather have my weapons blown away and still have a chance at retreat than lose my reactor first and be a sitting duck. With a weapon that can't shoot.

Quack!

 

[hakkarin]

Well aren't weapons the least vital system on your ship?

Depends completely on strategy and design. It doesn't make any sense to not see this is a balance issue. I mean what is even the point of making turrets have their own shields if you can just hide them like this anyway?

 

[hzzzln]

Depends completely on strategy and design.

Got an example? The only strategy I see here would be a suicide ship, and even if that worked, it would be quite a Pyrrhic victory.

It doesn't make any sense to not see this is a balance issue. I mean what is even the point of making turrets have their own shields if you can just hide them like this anyway?

I agree with you here. But I would simply suggest that the BOBBY AI just needs a clear line of sight, from the ship/turret it is attached to, to the target it wants to shoot at.

 

[CyberTao]

There is no point in trying to flank a ship for example if doing it doesn't make you less open to attack from it's turrets.

Weapons point forwards 9 times out of 10, and a majority of people do put them up front act as a buffer (power regen, jumpdrive, thrusters, and shield regen are all more important when losing blocks). When you flank a ship, they can't fire their forward guns back until they turn around, which is normally their main DPS source. If you manage to fall from the turret fire alone, you're probably just outclassed.

People have already said that most people would just shove a stick out through the front. If you manage to blow off that end, you've probably also made a hole large enough that they can fire from that group of weapons leftover inside. 'Tactics' in the sense you are thinking about is shooting out the computers, which tend to be around the core or bridge from what I experienced, so if you can flank them and get their shields down, you can shut down their weapons with a well placed shot to the weapons control center.

I don't see how it becomes a challenge either, it more of a annoyance than anything. From the ships I have seen, the weapons are right behind a thin layer of decoration at the front anyways. People would move 1, maybe 2 blocks, and everything would work again. It just creates an ugly looking (and potentially wide) bow with dozens of outputs dotted across it, what unless you snipe off the end with a cannon (good luck with that) you're still gonna have a functional weapon. It changes nothing except how ships would look, and screws with how a few people build.

As a final sidenote, the dreaded 'borgcube' that people say hidden weapons support. Death cubes generally did not have much, if any, hull to start with. A death cube is a blob of systems, with the weapons generally being up front because that is how everyone builds. People put weapons at the front and thrusters at the back or in areas where they would make sense, because our brains will go "this is how a spaceship works" even if we know it doesn't matter.

As a side note, I was under the impression that turrets could not fire through their mothership, in fact I know they can't cause I have seen the turret fire at weird angles so to not hit it. So no idea what you are about with turrets., this is a thread about the ship's onboard weapons (The ones you control while in a ship), not how turrets work.

TL;DR - The concept here would not make anything challenging. It would not add depth. It would merely annoy the people who try to make things look nice, and maybe piss off the few people who hide their master systems in the back.

The main opponents are shipbuilders

There is more than just shipbuilders here, and one of the few shipbuilders here even voted for this idea I believe. Vanhelzing pretty much said it was pointless, and he's a shipbuilder who builds his guns exposed as part of his ships. Try using an argument instead of trying to devalue those who don't agree with you.

 

[jayman38]

...A death cube is a blob of systems, with the weapons generally being up front because that is how everyone builds. People put weapons at the front and thrusters at the back or in areas where they would make sense, because our brains will go "this is how a spaceship works" even if we know it doesn't matter.

Weapons are also placed at the front to maximize range. Having your weapon output at the front of the ship or the back of the ship can make a big difference when you are trying to keep outside of an enemy's maximum range.

 

[Snk]

There is more than just shipbuilders here, and one of the few shipbuilders here even voted for this idea I believe. Vanhelzing pretty much said it was pointless, and he's a shipbuilder who builds his guns exposed as part of his ships. Try using an argument instead of trying to devalue those who don't agree with you.

The main arguments to it are people who don't want to rebuild their ships. That is an annoying and frustrating argument. It's not pointless, it is just a design constraint. It should be a config option, in any case.

 

[CyberTao]

The main arguments to it are people who don't want to rebuild their ships. That is an annoying and frustrating argument. It's not pointless, it is just a design constraint. It should be a config option, in any case.

You wouldn't even have to rebuild. You'd have to move 2 blocks and at best it ruins your current aesthetics. That is literally all that would happen.

 

[Snk]

You wouldn't even have to rebuild. You'd have to move 2 blocks and at best it ruins your current aesthetics. That is literally all that would happen.

Doesn't that support the suggestion?

 

[CyberTao]

Doesn't that support the suggestion?

What even was the suggestion for? You generate an annoyance in shipbuilding for what gain?

 

[keylan118]

The main arguments to it are people who don't want to rebuild their ships. That is an annoying and frustrating argument. It's not pointless, it is just a design constraint. It should be a config option, in any case.

You wouldn't even have to rebuild. You'd have to move 2 blocks and at best it ruins your current aesthetics. That is literally all that would happen.

As I wrote in an earlier post, this incentivizes the already insanely incentivized shields so as to not have your weapons blown off.

 

[CyberTao]

As I wrote in an earlier post, this incentivizes the already insanely incentivized shields so as to not have your weapons blown off.

Not really, as Jay has said, people already put their weapons up front maximize on range. If you took a missile to the bow, you're losing a chunk of your weapons whether they are exposed or not, and as it was said elsewhere in this thread, if you're losing block, weapons are the least important block. Power and thrust take priority.

 

[Snk]

What even was the suggestion for? You generate an annoyance in shipbuilding for what gain?

Realism? Aesthetics? The suggestion was making it so projectiles don't go through blocks. if it's such a minor inconvenience, then why not?

 

[keylan118]

Realism? Aesthetics? The suggestion was making it so projectiles don't go through blocks. if it's such a minor inconvenience, then why not?

It would be an annoyance to the devs too, who already have a lot on their plate, and this would also cause lag due to more complicated collision detection (though how much?)
Saying that we should add it because it is a minor inconvenience is illogical. I don't see why we shouldn't add a randomly spawning Eiffel Tower, it would be just a minor inconvenience for everyone.

 

[CyberTao]

Realism? Aesthetics? The suggestion was making it so projectiles don't go through blocks. if it's such a minor inconvenience, then why not?

If there was no gain to it, then why do it? If you had a hundred dollars, would you pay a dollar for an empty bag you didn't need?