My take on a new AMC system

    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    Greetings.

    I'd like to talk about antimatter cannons. More specifically, about what's wrong with them, why is it wrong, and how to change it to be AWESOME instead.

    Basically, as it is, you just have to add more amc blocks to your weapon to make it better in every stat. That's not very interesting, and it also means there's only one kind of good cannon; one that was built of many blocks.

    Their function is also limited, they're somewhat awkward to use, and after a certain cannon size, look rather silly. Let me explain;

    A single, solid AMC cannon, no matter how large, how powerful, will only ever destroy one block on hit. There's a little lag between a hit and the block's destruction, so cannons with high rates of fire tend to waste a few shots on blocks that are already destroyed. Meaning, you can't dig an 1x1 wide straight line into your enemy as quick as you'd like. That means it takes more time to reach the core.

    But, even a little bit of movement could take the hole you've already shot into the enemy out of alignment from your gun, and you'll have to start poking a new hole in your target, further delaying the destruction of it's core.

    Imagine you're flying a gigantic capital ship. You want to shoot down a tiny little fighter that could fit inside your main gun's barrel, but instead of instantly vaporizing it in a giant blast of energy, you'll start poking tiny holes on it as described above. Usually you'll have to destroy almost every block, one by one on that ship until you can reach the core. It's just wrong.

    Fighting bigger ships isn't any better. In relative scale, your shots do even less damage. What does one missing block matter when your target was built of three million? (Yes, I have fought a ship that large. It was miserable. 15 minutes of punching tiny holes into the frontal hull, and no end in sight.)

    You can't cripple your enemy; take out a few thrusters and he'll still have thousands more to fly with.

    You can't break their cannons; as long as there's some blocks left, it'll keep firing.

    Just watch or read any sci-fi stuff. You need large blasts of energy that can cut through a ship, and destroy entire chunks at once. That's how you reach the core, or destroy other important systems.



    The way to solve these issues, is, first to make the cannons stats depend on the dimensions of the weapon, and then to add a few new stats.

    For the wellfare of Missiles: One of those new stats for the AMC is Splash Damage, which might trouble some of you, but rest assured, I don't want AMCs to simply replace missiles. In time the missiles should be buffed up to be even more devastating than my proposed cannons. Plus, we already have a workaround to achieve splash damage: Scattercannons, built of several separate AMC lines. If built properly, it can be absolutely devastating, especially compared to missiles. In some cases it's nice, and probably a lot of ships would still use this setup, even if AMCs were to get splash damage. However this method is not without fault; Build a big enough scattercannon, and your shots will start to glitch out, and it can make home servers lag horribly.

    Let's see those stats now.

    -Damage; The more AMC blocks you add to your cannon, the greater it's damage will be; as it is right now. No changes needed. Simply because bigger guns are more powerful.

    -Range; Should be increased by the length of the cannon.

    -Penetration from Damage; An AMC bolt should not disappear upon impact, but keep on punching through it's target until it deals all the damage it can deal.

    Example; You shoot once from a 1000-damage AMC cannon. The bolt strikes an 8 block thick wall of basic hull. It destroys the 1st block, and since basic hulls have 100 hp and 25% armor, it takes about 133 damage to destroy one. 1st block is destroyed, 133 is deducted from the AMC bolt's original strength of 1000, and it keeps flying on, at 867 strenght. It hits the next block, and the procedure repeats all the way until the bolt's strength reaches 0 and it disappears; It destroyed 7 blocks, and damaged the last one.

    -Accuracy VS Splash Radius; The longer and thinner your amc cannon, the more accurate it'll be. A long, sleek barrel should make for accurate shooting.

    Example: 100 block long 1 block diameter amc cannon = splash radius 1 (damages one block in one hit), accuracy is length - (height x width) = 100 - (1x1) = 99%

    However, if you build a thicker barrel, say, also 100 long, but with a 2x2 mouth, your projectile will be scaled up to look as fat as the barrel, will have a 2x2 splash radius (can damage 4 blocks in a 2 by 2 square in one hit), and it's accuracy will be 100 - (2x2) = 96%

    **: Barrel diameter should be checked at the output of the gun. Further inside we tend to build them in any shape we can.

    It'd have a neat side effect; For short range, it'll be more beneficial to use wide-mouthed howitzers, while at long ranges sleek-barreled and precise cannons will be more effective.

    Also, blocks destroyed by splash damage shouldn't count towards penetration. That stat decides how deep it can cut, while this one decides how large the hole will be. It'd also be neat if the bolt wouldn't just become bigger, but could scale in the x and y direction independently. Someone might want to build a flat looking cannon or some sort of wave-gun.

    Rate of fire: Sometimes you'd like your small ship, or turret to be rapid firing, but you just can't squeeze in enough weapon blocks for that to happen. At other times you'd like a slow firing giant cannon; Rate of fire should be freely adjustable between a fixed* minimum and maximum value. Since a weapons power consumption is counted by shot, you'll keep draining your power faster and faster as you increase your rate of fire, and it doesn't even need any extra coding. (Id also like to see an overheating effect eventually, but that's a thought for another day...) It'd also work the other way; By setting it to a low rate, you could better manage a big cannon's energy needs. You could even see your batteries charge up for a shot, then deplete, then charge up again, which is way cool in a dreadful foreboding sense. ( IMMA' CHAAARGIN' MAH LAAZOOOR!!!!)

    *: Rate of fire vs Splash Radius: Maximum possible rate of fire should be reduced by relative barrel thickness, much like accuracy, simply because chambering a large fat shell (or loading in a larger amount of plasma, or any sci-fi magic material) should take longer. It'll be good for balance.

    Rate of Fire vs Accuracy: No one wants to be torn apart from two sectors away by a mutant sniper-minigun. Solution; The growing targeting circle seen in many games. Every shot fired adds a temporary accuracy penalty at the value of the cannons original accuracy penalty from barrel width. Penalty drains away when the gun stopped firing, at the same speed as it's rate of fire.

    Example; 5 round burst with the 100 x2x2 cannon; First shot's accuracy is 100-(2x2) = 96%, second shot is down to 96 - (2x2)= 92%, the third is 88%, fourth is 84%, fifth is 80%, after the fifth, you're down to 76%.

    Cap this effect at 50% of the original accuracy (cannon with 96% can't fall below 48%) to avoid ridiculiously sideways-shooting cannons.

    Neat addition; Weapon Stabilizer blocks. Connect them to the weapon computer like the amc blocks. Build them in any shape you like, place them anywhere. (you don't want to mess with the freedom of creative building). Their function would be to negate some of the accuracy penalty per shot and reduce the maximum accuracy penalty, based on the difference between the amount of AMC and Stabilizer blocks connected to the weapon computer.

    And that's all for now. Thank you for taking the time to read through all this.

    Scroll down for pictures!
     
    Joined
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages
    151
    Reaction score
    0
    Ya know, when you first posted this idea in the other thread about AMC\'s, I thought \"The only flaw is that the XY measurement that determines the AoE and size of the shell could be anywhere on the gun\" and then you came out and beat me to the punch and even suggested something better, that it be wide on the same XY plane as the output.



    With that said, I say +1. If I make a 100x100x100 area of AMC blocks, I wanna see a 100x100 size shell! And I want it to punch a 100x100 hole in an enemy ship without shields! Well except, it wouldn\'t because of damage degredation, but it would punch a moderately penetrating very wide hole, hehe.

    +1

    +1

    +1
     
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    49
    Reaction score
    0
    I dont believe that this system would work well because its basically a faster missile. And if they did have a splash damage and you have a huge ship it would be way to easy to demolish anything in your way. The point of having a huge ship that has powerful lasers is so it can easily drop a ships shields and destroy blocks quickly. Thats why people make a ship with 1 powerful laser to take down shields and a large scatter of lasers to destroy hull blocks. Or you could use a missile.
     
    Joined
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages
    151
    Reaction score
    0
    The OP\'s suggestion is based on the assumption that missiles will actually be balanced to be a useful weapon later on.



    It\'s possible that you did not consider that with a high damage, high AoE AMC, the rate of fire would be significantly reduced. So it would be a slow firing heavy hitter.



    And in the current game, if you want to destroy shields you\'ll just stick with a large scatter of lasers, because it does more DPS than 1 powerful cannon. The problem is, 1 powerful cannon in the current game is a waste of time because it can only ever destroy 1 block at a time.



    The OP is suggesting a better way to balance out the AMC. Having scattered outputs will still be effective, but for people who like having massive ships that are essentially just containers for 1 massive grouping of AMC blocks, it allows them to stay somewhat competitive.



    The OP said it best, if you\'re up against a fighter that could fit inside your cannon, that fighter should be decimated by a shot from said cannon. It\'s just plain silly otherwise.
     
    Joined
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages
    267
    Reaction score
    1
    Great idea, i like it. Despite my tries, i failed to find any problems with your idea. For me, it\'s flawless and has to be implemented as fast as possible. The bad fact is, for all i know, schema doesn\'t actually read the suggestion forum, so we are left to hope that he will do once he will actually be ready for some new features.
     
    Joined
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages
    7
    Reaction score
    0
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Legacy Citizen
    Maybe instead of literally splashing, it could take a feature from the pulse weapon.

    Pulse weapon: Larger weapon -> Larger pulse

    Take that and we get;

    AMC: Larger weapon -> Larger beam -> More areas hit

    But of course, for balancing purposes Larger weapon =/= More damage. For this case we should retain More blocks = More damage
     
    Joined
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages
    91
    Reaction score
    0
    is the penetration from damage. I fear that this would help core drilling. otherwise I like the ideas, they follow logic.
     
    Joined
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages
    151
    Reaction score
    0
    It actually does seem like that would be a problem at first, but it\'s actually not bad.



    In one of my recent ships, I had well over 100 individual AMC cannons that were all only 1-block thick and 200m on the z axis. Now the ship was very powerful, but the damage came out to like, ~370 per cannon. That\'s not even enough damage to break a hardened hull block in one shot.



    So in order to get some good damage out, you\'re going to want to optimize your cannons and group them up, increasing their girth.

    In the OP\'s proposal, increasing girth decreases your rate of fire. This is why this proposal is so graceful.

    If I spent 200 AMC blocks and made 10 AMC cannons that were all 20 blocks in total, I would do some good DPS and remove blocks quickly. However in the current iteration of the game, if I grouped all 200 AMC blocks together into 1 cannon, I would only remove 1 block at a time at a high fire rate.

    In the OP\'s proposal, my 1 cannon with 200 AMC blocks(Assuming I add girth to it) would penetrate and do a fair AoE damage at the impact on the hull, and in return I shoot at a slower fire rate. The reason the AoE and penetration is justified, is because if you were to use the same amount of AMC blocks and build a shotgun ship, you\'d still be destroying a bunch of blocks at the same time.

    So the idea is that the rate at which you penetrate hull is supposed to even out in the end.

    You can build shotgun ships with high rate of fire and low range and low individual damage, and get high sustained DPS.

    Or you can build massive cannons with long range, high damage, and low fire rate to do big damage, but in bursts. It\'s not something you could sustain over a short period of time.
     
    Joined
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages
    191
    Reaction score
    7
    Does regularly read the suggestion forums, probably laughs at a few ideas, but does not respond unless it is a REALLY good suggestion or is highly controversial.
     
    Joined
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages
    132
    Reaction score
    0
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Legacy Citizen
    GREAT IDEA ABOUT individual AMC \"bullets\" doing \"penetrating damage\" so if it was a 400 bullet, it punctures the first hull and the second hull too, and damages the third (or whatever the stats are on hulls I forgot).

    This really solves the problem of pounding a ship with your 20 cannons and its only doing the damage (almost) as if you had one cannon due to lag/pinpointing. My suggestion to help this was to force the curving of all cannons to be 25 degrees moving room, so no more 60 degree pinpointing from your far outer cannons.

    I think these two ideas go together nicely

    However, a concern I have with this, I am not sure if its a real concern, is performance wise this seems like a bitch to deal with, having to track individual AMC bullets and making them punch through multiple hulls (until their damage/energy is depleted). Right now the game does not differentiate AMC bllets hitting a block at near the same time very well so how will this effect bullets that punture through until depleted of forceful energy?

    The idea of 100x100 cannon exit face producing literally a Death Star size laser is possibly too hard to code (so many blocks to process damage on - for schema to figure out performance issues if any I guess).

    It\'s cool but ridiculous. I\'d love to see it though would be halirious to see though, literally building a death star laser, no more a joke, a very possible reality (lol). A real planet cracker. Not pretend ones like now.

    But I dont want to see my hard-earned 200 meter carrier with 20k shields get 5 shotted to tie-fighter size in 0.98 seconds by some psycho laser though. Unless its just so massive and horrible to turn/manuver that even a big carrier can buzz around it like a bee... in that case great, love this idea of psycho big lasers

    I DEFINITELY DONT WANT TO SEE THIS AS A FREE MOVING TURRET!!!!!!! lol can you imagine, no turn rate issues, set bobbyai to target what you target...schema please hardcode a max turret size limit lol.
     
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    and a madman\'s scribbles are priceless.

    I thought the topic could use some visuals to better get the idea across, so I excercised my admittedly amateur photoshop skills. Enjoy.

    -This is how it works now with single-output cannons;



    -This is how it should work instead;



    -And this is what you currently have to do if you want to fight big ships with a shred of efficiency- Scattercannons and an excessive amount of turrets;



    -And just to show you that I care about the missiles as well, this is how they should be (Note the waaay larger AOE compared to AMC-AOE, and the punch-through-then-explode-inside feature);



    Yup.

    Special thanks to MisterVec from the Vecordean Fleetworks, for lending me one of his heavy destroyers for testing. He\'s even included a full crew of \"volunteers\" to make sure the simulations would be extra-realistic. Because VFW cares about you.
     
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages
    15
    Reaction score
    0
    I like this idea. Any idea that subjects the stats and performance to the shape is a beautiful thing. Every system block that works like that so far in StarMade absolutely MAKES the game. The way I see it, you\'ve got a set number of stat lines for the final AMC weapon, and a set number of block arrangements to assign to them.

    Potential stat lines:

    Power (how much the AMC lowers the shields / whether the AMC breaks a block)

    Range

    Rate of Fire

    Penetration (proposed)

    Precision (Accuracy might better describe user-ability) (proposed or already a variable? I\'m not very observant when I shoot from far out with an AMC)

    Splash Radius (proposed)

    Potential Block Arrangement:

    Total block #

    Block system z-coord

    Block system y-coord

    Block system x-coord

    Block system faces touching

    Block surface area (front/back i.e. x,y-plane)

    Block surface area (x,z-plane)

    Block surface area (y,z-plane)

    Block system tip surface area (x,y-plane extreme z)

    Block system base surface area (x,y-plane extreme z)



    Any way this game makes the shape and size of a block arrangement affect the final stat line, I\'m happy. Customization rocks. Another reason I\'m happy is that the stat-line numbers can always be then be nerfed to fine-tune game balance by the designer after. Opportunity cost will be inherently built in to such a system. With stat-line manipulation, a traditional \"cylinder/gun\" shape can be encouraged for efficiency, but without utterly negating the creative value of forming unorthodox shapes to counter unorthodox circumstances.

    I\'m sure there are many more stat lines or block arrangement elements that could be listed. Better analytical minds, you forum geeks do yo thang.

    This principle can be applied to other block types as well, naturally, not just AMCs.
     
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages
    494
    Reaction score
    83
    Since we stopped production of the Nocturne (to repurpose the Fleetworking cloacas of our insectile shipyards), we have been trying to find uses for the old hulls (and now-worthless crew) of our ships.
     
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    I understand your concerns.

    They shouldn\'t be a problem;

    One: AMC bullets are objects too - even if visually they only show a line drawn by the game. Objects can have variables assigned to them. Their strength could be saved to such a variable, and could also be easily adjusted upon impact, and checked if it fell below zero. It is extra code to run, yes, but hopefully it\'s miniscule enough not to make any real difference in resource needs.

    Two: Missiles or scattercannons damage and destroy lots of blocks at once too. It\'s true, the game\'s not very good at handling it right now, but given it\'s alpha state, a marked increase in performance can be expected in the future.

    Three: If someone can gather materials to build something so large, manages it\'s insane power requirements,and finds a place where it\'ll fit, I\'d say he deserves to have a deathstar cannon. Turret turning speeds should also receive a similar treatment as ship turnspeeds did, though.( If they didn\'t already. Anyone noticed anything about how fast or slowly turrets can turn? ) That way it\'d be profoundly difficult to hit small things with oversized turrets. The Death Star in star wars has only used it\'s main gun against planets, if I\'m not mistaken. Now your ship only has to worry about a thousand point-defense batteries. Hurray!
     
    Joined
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages
    151
    Reaction score
    0
    Not to mention that the bigger cannons would fire at a slower fire-rate, so the game engine wouldn\'t have to calculate hundreds of impacts from giant cannons at once like they do with the current scattercannon mess.



    Also great job posting pictures of your intentions, they illustrate your proposal SO much better. And kudos to Vec for lending a hand.



    Also I\'m really just posting again to show my unyielding support for this thread and proposal. Seriously, if I can BLAM a hole into a ship like that, I would just always design new cannons. No really, it opens up SO many more design possibilities. Heavy hitting fighters designed to hurt bigger ships or high RoF minigun fighters to fight other fighters. Just give me this feature already!
     
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    17
    Reaction score
    0
    Love the idea for scaling projectiles in both the x- and y- axis. I\'d love to see a capital-size \'Line Gun\' to cut other ships in half, especially if parts of a ship could be broken off!
     
    Joined
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages
    387
    Reaction score
    62
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen
    This would add so much to the combat strategy of the game, right now it is basically big ship wins, because their guns shoot faster, farther, harder, and move faster. There is very little point to making a fighter that gets f*cked by two shots from one of the mega-scattercannons. Also, it would be super fun to shout, \"CHARGE THE DEATH LAZOR!\"
     
    Joined
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages
    1
    Reaction score
    0
    • Legacy Citizen
    I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. We need this in the game, because it actually results in a real scaling component for the AMC\'s. The reload reduction is critical of course. What\'s interesting is this actually allows for super-heavy cannons to have a legitimate use. Currently, if you were to create a cannon that is made up of 1000 AMC\'s, you would be adding blocks that increase the damage by only a negligable amount. (1000 AMC\'s has 800 damage, each additional AMC adds
     
    Joined
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages
    425
    Reaction score
    273
    Put simply, shields are better than armor in every important way right now except scalability (and even then shields usually win out until you get to utterly enormous sizes), and the only thing sort of saving armor is that it can absorb any excess damage over what it takes to break a block per volley. Mega cannons of doom will result in both being able to more efficiently hit shields than using checkerboard shotguns (since no shots are wasted presumably) and the ability to drill through already weak armor like butter, resulting in ship battles where whoever takes out the shields first just drills one big hole into the core.

    What we need is expensive armor that absorbs AMC as heat and loses heat over time, only taking damage if the AMC (or a missile) either hits it for a lot of damage (say 2000, causing it to instantly crack) or if it is above the heat limit (takes damage over time until cooled). With this, the improved AMC system wouldn\'t be able to just drill into a ship unless it was ridiculously powerful (even if you hit the magic 2000, the armor surrounding what you hit would only heat up instead of being damaged outright), there\'d be a use for missiles, big guns would be preferable for heavily aromored targets, and there\'d be more of a use for armor.