New Systems/ Weapons/ Blocks that do things (non-hull)

[Ithirahad]

Make it so that you need them to be on the outside of hull... if you can think of a way to do that, while still having it look nice, you will have me convinced.

That's kind of easy. Make the shots work like turret shots. If they hit your own ship (Besides the beam emitter blocks themselves) the beam just stops.

 

[Winterhome]

I would think that this would go well with a rotor/piston/etc. system instead of being its own device. Limit weapon firing arcs to a few degrees, allow weapons computers to be linked to a rotor or piston block and it link the weapon to the outputs on the other side of the block.

That way you could have an internal weapon system that is manually fired, can be fired in all directions, and looks good, at the cost of not being operable by AI.

If we had weapons that locked on and auto-fired, then the game would immediately have shifted in strict favor of capital ships, which we are attempting to avoid. A "Weak" weapon with auto tracking mounted to a large ship would be disastrous for anything under half the large ship's mass, even moreso than AMCs, as the smaller ship cannot find a blind spot if the entire ship is coated in these things. I suggest avoiding suggestions that allow "Sit and shoot" gameplay to be easy.

 

[Ithirahad]

I would think that this would go well with a rotor/piston/etc. system instead of being its own device. Limit weapon firing arcs to a few degrees, allow weapons computers to be linked to a rotor or piston block and it link the weapon to the outputs on the other side of the block.

That way you could have an internal weapon system that is manually fired, can be fired in all directions, and looks good, at the cost of not being operable by AI.

If we had weapons that locked on and auto-fired, then the game would immediately have shifted in strict favor of capital ships, which we are attempting to avoid. A "Weak" weapon with auto tracking mounted to a large ship would be disastrous for anything under half the large ship's mass, even moreso than AMCs, as the smaller ship cannot find a blind spot if the entire ship is coated in these things. I suggest avoiding suggestions that allow "Sit and shoot" gameplay to be easy.

Diminishing damage returns (but linear power drain) on larger arrays solves this, if you balance its effectiveness to be at its maximum on cruisers and cruiser/carriers of reasonable size. That said, the entire notion of a "capital ship" is flawed due to bad economy; current "Capital Ships" are more like city-ships or perhaps Death Star-like "doom ships", taking a long time and trillions of credits to slowly assemble... A fleet's "Capital Ship" should merely be a powerful, fairly large, well-armed, well-shielded, very expensive battle carrier, which should stay within reasonable damage limits, assuming that the "phasers" aren't as stupidly accurate as current turrets.

 

[Vyor]

Diminishing damage returns (but linear power drain) on larger arrays solves this, if you balance its effectiveness to be at its maximum on cruisers and cruiser/carriers of reasonable size. That said, the entire notion of a "capital ship" is flawed due to bad economy; current "Capital Ships" are more like city-ships or perhaps Death Star-like "doom ships", taking a long time and trillions of credits to slowly assemble... A fleet's "Capital Ship" should merely be a powerful, fairly large, well-armed, well-shielded, very expensive battle carrier, which should stay within reasonable damage limits, assuming that the "phasers" aren't as stupidly accurate as current turrets.

Fair enough...

 

[Andem]

well phasers would be optimal for taking down shields, and I play STO too, didn't even think of that, good idea!

I would call them ATBWs. (Auto Tracking Beam Weapons)
[DOUBLEPOST=1448352467,1448352332][/DOUBLEPOST]

Actually for those that didn't play STO, star trek universe has several types of energy beam array weapons. Also phasers come in cannon and turret models. Please no comments on what is and isn't Star Trekkie canon, those arguments are always unending. I'm using these as example to make a point that we could just as easily have a beam array antimatter weapon, or a just a laser beam, or some other type of beam weapon.

What the OP is really suggesting here is a instant hit, perfect accuracy weapon, with 270 degree cone of fire. Normally these would be balanced to favour accuracy over damage, allowing for an extermely low damage continuous rate of fire.

If salvage cannons actually scaled in a sane manor and harmed shields, they would be the equal to a beam array.

So long as you never, ever mention the... most recent... films and show, you should be fine, Trekkie wise.

 

[alterintel]

 

[Shadowed Draconian]

Thread necromancy, indeed. This thread has died, and need not be revived; may it rest in peace.

Andem , next time, remember to look at the date under the last post. If a thread has not been posted in for more than a month or two, then do not revive it unless, perhaps, you have some new insight on the original topic, which may cause the discussion to commence once more.