Brainstorm This Missile ammo brainstorming

[spunkiethefirst]

Another thing you ammo proponent guys are forgetting: The variable of weapon sizes and the capability of players to build weapons with multiple sized emitters linked to the same computer.

How do you determine how much to spend on ammo for each size launcher? Do you need a specific ammo for a specific size launcher or use a generic ammo type who's use spans across all launcher sizes?

From my earlier post:

The missile computer has an interface that allows missile setup, there are 3 slots available for customizing. The weapon and effect slot can both be assigned an amount of modules equal to the number of missile tubes assigned to that computer. The tertiary effect slot only uses 1 module per shot. The modules assigned will be consumed per shot, and are supplied from storage blocks linked to the missile computer.

What this means:
You have a missile computer assigned to several groups of tubes, for this scenario the groups are 20, 10, and 5 missile tubes. Open the missile computer interface and you can assign the proportion of ammo to influence the missile the same way its done now with weapon linking. In this instance to get the full 100% swarmer effect you would need to assign 35 missile tubes to the weapon slot. when fired all the groups would fire 10 missiles with the 20 group having 2x damage and 4x damage vs the missiles fired from the 10 and 5 group respectively. In all cases the groups assigned to the one computer will consume warheads equal to the number of assigned missile tubes. If you lack enough ammo then the same thing that happens with other weapons with low power.

One other thing, you can stock lots of ammo on your ship but there's a risk in having your storage blocks shot out or torched, and unless you spread it out over several storage blocks your missiles are done.

Pro:

• low or no power cost
• high damage density

Con:

• you are shooting money at the enemy
• this "money" doesn't come out of thin air like energy
• this "money" can be shot down

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Wait folks...
I never even suggested removing the power cost. That would be the factor that distinguishes the cost of firing the smallest missile from firing the largest missile. That's why my entire concept revolved around using a capacitor for the missile, and the level of charge in that capacitor would determine the missile's range or damage (more juice, bigger boom). The power cost should MAYBE get decreased but never removed. I wanted to add variety to how weapon systems work, and a limited amount of ammo for the biggest boom /shot weapon in the game to make using it a tactical decision instead of a matter of spamming. I never wanted to absolutely break it. The ammo cost is still nothing to an established player (unless effects are added to the missiles, in which case the cost/missile will skyrocket - and that's a good thing) so the limiting factor would be more the amount available. Hence the idea of limited capacity storages, or limited number stacks (10 maybe?) for missile ammo

 

[shadowulf]

Matt_Bradock have you seriously not looked at my posts and several others? Warheads are already ammo, just modify the block behavior. Additionally, no new block IDs have to be used up. And again, why is everyone opposed to warheads on torpedoes? Last night I put the damage of my warheads at 200000(blast radius at 15), and they became a significant threat, in large numbers. A single basic torp took out a 10x10x6 basic hull, a 4x4x4 standard armor, and a 4x4x1 advanced armor. That's not overpowered.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Matt_Bradock have you seriously not looked at my posts and several others? Warheads are already ammo, just modify the block behavior. Additionally, no new block IDs have to be used up. And again, why is everyone opposed to warheads on torpedoes? Last night I put the damage of my warheads at 200000(blast radius at 15), and they became a significant threat, in large numbers. A single basic torp took out a 10x10x6 basic hull, a 4x4x4 standard armor, and a 4x4x1 advanced armor. That's not overpowered.

I'll just put this here...

By the way. I'm now making shots with auto loading torpedoes in excess of 2500m...
[DOUBLEPOST=1443018631,1443018540][/DOUBLEPOST]This IS the ammo solution. It's realistic and it works quite well.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

The only problem with warhead torpedoes: a single swarm array on the ship you attacked, just 100 damage per missile, and they are all toast. The swarm missiles will intercept as the incoming warhead is the closest target, and since they don't give a damn about faction ID, or active AI, the warhead torps will be juicy targets.

In fleet warfare where swarms might not be an option, skilled pilots can go for some turrets that aim for selected targets, and just target the incoming torpedoes and blow them right out of space before they have a chance to get near the ship. If they have an active AI to assist aiming (like, point at target ship) then just turning "consider neutral enemy" on will make the targeted ship's turrets mercilessly blow them out of the sky without player interaction.

But besides these disadvantages, I have to admit, warhead torpedoes might be a thing. IF you can arrange storing them and reloading the launchers without making them dangerously exposed - as just one hit and the whole magazine will blow up in a chain reaction and YOUR ship will look like the image Dr. Whammy posted.

 

[whooplaah]

How do you determine how much to spend on ammo for each size launcher? Do you need a specific ammo for a specific size launcher or use a generic ammo type who's use spans across all launcher sizes?

It would depend upon whether all weapon systems have an ammo count, or as OP said, only missiles have ammo counts. The reason it depends is because we don't want the system to be overly simple or overly complicated.

If only missiles have ammo, then the type of ammo should change according to the effect module and the amount of ammo used per shot should vary according to system size/damage. There would be a different type of charge for each missile + effect combination.

If all weapon systems have an ammo count, then there should be only one type of ammo for each type of system. Effect modules have their own ammo type which is used in addition to the ammo for the weapon to which they are linked. The amount used per shot changes as the system size/damage increases.


I'm thinking of ammo not as the number of missiles, but as the number of explosive components stuffed inside the missile. Each piece of ammo represents up to 500 damage (for example), so a missile system that deals 3,000 damage per shot uses 6 "photon charges" per shot. An anti-matter canon linked to a push effect module that does 600 damage a shot would use 2 "refracting lenses" and 2 "kinetic charges" per shot.

The reason I give two examples is because we don't want players to have too many types of ammo to keep track of. I think any more than 10 types of ammo is too complicated, preferably it should stay around 5. If we use generic ammo types (like refracting lenses) we can use the same ammo in multiple systems (anti-matter cannon, damage beam, power supply beam). This would be easier for players to understand an utilize both in factory production of ammo and in maintaining ammo counts on their ship.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Here's a weird idea.

We're in the future. We have free energy, unlimited fuel, and apparently unlimited food, water and air on our ships. Just as Star Trek has replicator technology, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that someone with this capability could replicate things like gun powder, rocket propellant, aviation-grade aluminum and basic electronic circuits. In theory, you could argue that ship weapons have replicator technology installed and that...

- Cannon shells are essentially solid matter or explosives (simple components which can be mass-replicated).

- Beams are essentially lasers, and particle streams (which can be emitted continuously if given enough power).

- Pulses are electromagnetic shock waves that violently throw magnetized particles outward in an omnidirectional pattern, creating an expanding wall of high velocity particulate flak that dissipates rapidly with range.

- Missiles are an upscale and more complex version of cannon rounds (can be mass-replicated) but require more energy to reproduce due to the substantial increase in size mass and more complex circuitry.

- Torpedoes use a highly unstable substance (raw antimatter or a small fusion reactor) that cannot be safely replicated and needs a special containment system that is larger than what a missile can hold.

There is no need for an ammo system. In the future, your power grid is your ammo.

...Except for torpedoes. This is how I do it.
http://starmadedock.net/threads/questions-about-warheads.21016/page-3#post-232306

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Here's a weird idea.

We're in the future. We have free energy, unlimited fuel, and apparently unlimited food, water and air on our ships. Just as Star Trek has replicator technology, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that someone with this capability could replicate things like gun powder, rocket propellant, aviation-grade aluminum and basic electronic circuits. In theory, you could argue that ship weapons have replicator technology installed and that...

- Cannon shells are essentially solid matter or explosives (simple components which can be mass-replicated).

- Beams are essentially lasers, and particle streams (which can be emitted continuously if given enough power).

- Pulses are electromagnetic shock waves that violently throw magnetized particles outward in an omnidirectional pattern, creating an expanding wall of high velocity particulate flak that dissipates rapidly with range.

- Missiles are an upscale and more complex version of cannon rounds (can be mass-replicated) but require more energy to reproduce due to the substantial increase in size mass and more complex circuitry.

- Torpedoes use a highly unstable substance (raw antimatter or a small fusion reactor) that cannot be safely replicated and needs a special containment system that is larger than what a missile can hold.

There is no need for an ammo system. In the future, your power grid is your ammo.

...Except for torpedoes. This is how I do it.
http://starmadedock.net/threads/questions-about-warheads.21016/page-3#post-232306

And... not really. Even in Star Trek, there were certain materials that could NOT be replicated. The 2 most important being:
- Antimatter, the power source of EVERY warp drive and torpedo (yes, even photon torpedoes) in the Star Trek universe (except for the Romulans, who powered their warbirds with a quantum singularity)
- Latinum, being rare and non-replicable made it the main currency for Ferengi, and any other "non-utopistic" economy, as it could not be manufactured, only mined from nebulae - latinum being a mercury-like liquid, though, they added the gold to give it the shape and good looks, also to downvalue a single unit of volume, just as medieval kingdoms added silver and copper to gold in coins.

So. Cannons can fire plasma projectiles using materials the ship scoops up from space, and beams obviously only use energy. Missiles are the trickiest to explain, truly requiring replication to use infinitely. Hence my original post. Since, if we can replicate such a complex thing as a guided missile on a ship using only energy, why do we need raw materials to manufacture a single block of dense, homogenous metal (see as: ingots) instead of using only power to do it? Starmade's tech is not that high-tech, so I proposed the whole missile ammo thing to match that tech level, in addition to the tactical use and limited availability of missiles.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Did you actually read my post? I did mention antimatter for torpedoes which are obviously consumable. My ship currently gets only 20 shots. Besides, the only things a Star Trek replicator can't create are antimatter, dilithium, latinum, and living organisms.

Do you honestly think that they couldn't replicate a solid tungsten carbide cannon round? How about a depleted uranium sabot round, a solid fueled rocket engine or a led slug? Also, what part of a missile - the solid fuel rocket, aircraft grade aluminum/titanium, polymer, copper, gold and/or the carbon based explosives such as polymer-bonded explosive (PBX) LX-14 or TNT - do you think couldn't be created with a matter replicator?

 

[spunkiethefirst]

If we go the pre-crafted meta item route, it would require a specific missile factory/ crafting npc. You determine what size tube will be firing it, then enter your ammo (warheads, effect modules ,weapon modules, whatever components), the factory /missile crafting npc then outputs the missile meta item that displays its stats when you hover the mouse over it. This missile would then be able to be fired by any missile computer that meets or exceeds the missile tube number of that missile.

Spoiler: just a rant on conduct in suggestions forum

I assume when a forum topic says "Brainstorm This" it's asking how to make something work, not asking why you hate it. If the idea is disagreeable, then make a suggestion on what would need to be done to make it agreeable to you. Otherwise make your own thread (with black jack and hookers) titled "Just say no to ammo" then the powers that be can put a "brainstorm this" tag on it, and in that instance people who do like ammo should not go invading that thread either.

"Brainstorm This
Similar to the Recognized prefix, if we see an idea that we're interested in seeing the community try and develop a bit more, we'll tag it with this prefix. Let's see what the idea can turn into, when in doubt think bigger and then shrink from there if need be."

Moving on..

 

[Dr. Whammy]

That's too much complexity just to be able to add missiles to an arsenal. They're not powerful enough to be worth all that extra complexity. Seriously; why would someone spend that much time and effort trying to build missiles that 1) are significantly lacking in power and 2) able to be shot down by AMS units? I don't know about you but I'd be all over cannons and lasers if that was the case.

 

[spunkiethefirst]

That's too much complexity just to be able to add missiles to an arsenal. They're not powerful enough to be worth all that extra complexity. Seriously; why would someone spend that much time and effort trying to build missiles that 1) are significantly lacking in power and 2) able to be shot down by AMS units? I don't know about you but I'd be all over cannons and lasers if that was the case.

Ok. What would be an acceptable amount of complexity?

Spoiler: brainstorm

Similar to the Recognized prefix, if we see an idea that we're interested in seeing the community try and develop a bit more, we'll tag it with this prefix. Let's see what the idea can turn into, when in doubt think bigger and then shrink from there if need be.

 

[whooplaah]

We're in the future. We have free energy, unlimited fuel, and apparently unlimited food, water and air on our ships. Just as Star Trek has replicator technology, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that someone with this capability could replicate things like gun powder, rocket propellant, aviation-grade aluminum and basic electronic circuits. In theory, you could argue that ship weapons have replicator technology installed and that...

Though that is a good point, the game is still in development. We shouldn't argue against new features (ammo counts) because of features that haven't been implemented (food/water/fuel). We should also remember that it is a game, and that some features might not be worth simulating even in the final product.

So though a replicator could explain away the need for ammo reserves, it does not justify excluding a feature that would make the game more enjoyable. That's really what these discussions should be about: how fun would this idea be if it were included, and would it affect the fun of any other aspect of the game?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Ok. What would be an acceptable amount of complexity?

1) Increasing the damage so they are worth using, decreasing the power requirement so you can actually fire and lowering the firing rate so you can't continuously spam people without separate launch systems.

2) Leaving them as they are right now and taking the time to learn how to build torpedo launchers like some of us have already.

In any case, missiles are totally weaksauce right now. Any ammo implementation at all, needs to be accompanied by a massive damage buff and the elimination of power consumption from firing missiles or the whole thing is a waste of time.

Crafting should NOT be the ONLY way to play this game. This is a game not a chem lab.
[DOUBLEPOST=1443029609,1443029283][/DOUBLEPOST]

Though that is a good point, the game is still in development. We shouldn't argue against new features (ammo counts) because of features that haven't been implemented (food/water/fuel). We should also remember that it is a game, and that some features might not be worth simulating even in the final product.

So though a replicator could explain away the need for ammo reserves, it does not justify excluding a feature that would make the game more enjoyable. That's really what these discussions should be about: how fun would this idea be if it were included, and would it affect the fun of any other aspect of the game?

You make valid points but there should be an option in the server config to turn this stuff on or off. Some of us want to just play the game and not have to worry about logistics. Just as the server can be set to make blueprints cost credits instead of blocks and vise-versa, we should have the option to opt out of any complexity we find excessive and counteractive to our enjoyment.

 

[spunkiethefirst]

1) Increasing the damage so they are worth using, decreasing the power requirement so you can actually fire and lowering the firing rate so you can't continuously spam people without separate launch systems.

2) Leaving them as they are right now and taking the time to learn how to build torpedo launchers like some of us have already.

In any case, missiles are totally weaksauce right now. Any ammo implementation at all, needs to be accompanied by a massive damage buff and the elimination of power consumption from firing missiles or the whole thing is a waste of time.

Crafting should NOT be the ONLY way to play this game. This is a game not a chem lab.
[DOUBLEPOST=1443029609,1443029283][/DOUBLEPOST]
You make valid points but there should be an option in the server config to turn this stuff on or off. Some of us want to just play the game and not have to worry about logistics. Just as the server can be set to make blueprints cost credits instead of blocks and vise-versa, we should have the option to opt out of any complexity we find excessive and counteractive to our enjoyment.

Ok so focusing on the main point "missile ammo", what would be an acceptable ammo implementation of missiles for you?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Ok so focusing on the main point "missile ammo", what would be an acceptable ammo implementation of missiles for you?

None. Not everyone wants to play the game the same way you do. The concept you suggest is unnecessarily complex for some of us and has the potential to make missiles even more worthless. That's why you have a poll with a 30%+ vote against it. Hopefully the dev team will do the sensible thing and give 'non-crafting' players a choice to turn this kind of feature (if implemented) off in the server config..

 

[Matt_Bradock]

None. Not everyone wants to play the game the same way you do. The concept you suggest is unnecessarily complex for some of us and has the potential to make missiles even more worthless. That's why you have a poll with a 30%+ vote against it. Hopefully the dev team will do the sensible thing and give 'non-crafting' players a choice to turn this kind of feature (if implemented) off in the server config..

OK. We got it. You don't like the idea, Dr. Whammy . But you're trying to turn this thead into your personal crusade against the very concept and your posts take more of it than anyone else's. Please moderate yourself and stop trying to bash down everyone with a different opinion than yours.

 

[spunkiethefirst]

If the crafting is too complex what about just buying the missiles?

I'm seeing this as similar to logic. There will always be those who can only handle an activation block, and there will be those who make simulated computers out of it. Would you argue for the removal of logic, as it allows those wishing to engage and benefit in its complexity, since it conveys advantage to those that can grasp it?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

OK. We got it. You don't like the idea, Dr. Whammy . But you're trying to turn this thead into your personal crusade against the very concept and your posts take more of it than anyone else's. Please moderate yourself and stop trying to bash down everyone with a different opinion than yours.

Ok, three things.

First; This is a forum. If I see a poll on something that I feel will make the game less enjoyable for me and others who think like me, I shouldn't be fussed at for siding with an unpopular vote.

Second; You added the poll to this thread. That alone implies that people in this thread are free to agree or disagree with your views.

Third; If you read my posts on this subject, you'll see that I've been more than open minded and constructive. My opposition as well as the 'bashing' as you put it, didn't start until a few post ago, when you and spunkiethefirst didn't even try to offer any solution to the glaring balancing issue I asked you both about.

Do you want to discuss this logically or do you still want to operate under the assumption that your ideas are under some kind of personal attack?

 

[Byamarro]

Ammo! I start to believe that I will might also see fuel in Starmade.