PLEASE Rework Missile Capacity

[klawxx]

The current system... to hit the limit.

Can't we simply have missile stored on cargo blocks. Just have a missile size that's reasonable, PLUS a max amount of weapon groups of each kind.... Doesn't this sound reasonable and logical?

...Maybe also weapon levels like reactor levels as some sort of limitation?

Dunno, Maybe for a launcher of level 25 you need 2.000k cargo space for each missile... Just an example.

 

[Gmodism]

YES, the current block to missile ratio does not make sense, make storage measure "damage" and store "damage" points in them that are used by weapons. I think beams should be "free" to shoot but cannons use anti matter items and missiles some kind of explosive resource.

 

[NeonSturm]

It's not just anti-spam which I want.

1.

To disable spam, make missiles penetrate X*10 amount of shields to deal X amount of damage. Penetrated shield is not reduced.

When they deal 1/10 of the damage a turret has in HP, it is disabled for 1 second.
When they deal 25x the damage of a turret's HP, it is instantly killed. Build not more than 20 turrets to be pretty much safe from this.

Independent of shields only if the missile is large enough to deal over 10% dmg to the current enemy shield pool.​

2.

1 Launcher per computer may launch 8 missiles before they need refill.
2 Launchers only 4. 3-4 only 2.
5+ Launchers per computer fire only 1 missile before needing reload.

Launchers can only fire in 3 second intervals as long as they have enough ammo. This gives incentive to build multiple launchers.

The distribution of power among multiple missiles prevents you from dealing 25x the turrets hp as damage too easily.
Multiple instances only prolong stun time to the original value, but you can select more targets.

​

3.

Refill can be archived in multiple ways.

Like stockpile real-block missile-models of half the launchers size on a launcher-loader rail.
Use capacitor blocks to refil same value of launcher blocks.
...
​

4.

My Goals - I hope they match yours too:

Missiles should be long-range weapons which can be shot down.

We should have mines/missiles to easily stop chasing ships of 8x the size we could kill.
Emphasis on stop not damage. Only chasing ships, not ships which get this missiles/mines into their rear while flying forward.

It should be easier to take down turrets than internal weapons. Especially if someone spams them.

Temporary take-out is valuable too, as it gives you time to fire your other weapons on mixed ships and should be encouraged. All alpha-strike weapons with 30+ seconds cd may have this mode so that it is very difficult but also rewarding to rely on those alone.​

 

[Dr. Whammy]

It's not just anti-spam which I want.

1.

To disable spam, make missiles penetrate X*10 amount of shields to deal X amount of damage. Penetrated shield is not reduced.

When they deal 1/10 of the damage a turret has in HP, it is disabled for 1 second.
When they deal 25x the damage of a turret's HP, it is instantly killed. Build not more than 20 turrets to be pretty much safe from this.

Independent of shields only if the missile is large enough to deal over 10% dmg to the current enemy shield pool.​

2.

1 Launcher per computer may launch 8 missiles before they need refill.
2 Launchers only 4. 3-4 only 2.
5+ Launchers per computer fire only 1 missile before needing reload.

Launchers can only fire in 3 second intervals as long as they have enough ammo. This gives incentive to build multiple launchers.

The distribution of power among multiple missiles prevents you from dealing 25x the turrets hp as damage too easily.
Multiple instances only prolong stun time to the original value, but you can select more targets.

​

3.

Refill can be archived in multiple ways.

Like stockpile real-block missile-models of half the launchers size on a launcher-loader rail.
Use capacitor blocks to refil same value of launcher blocks.
...
​

4.

My Goals - I hope they match yours too:

Missiles should be long-range weapons which can be shot down.

We should have mines/missiles to easily stop chasing ships of 8x the size we could kill.
Emphasis on stop not damage. Only chasing ships, not ships which get this missiles/mines into their rear while flying forward.

It should be easier to take down turrets than internal weapons. Especially if someone spams them.

Temporary take-out is valuable too, as it gives you time to fire your other weapons on mixed ships and should be encouraged. All alpha-strike weapons with 30+ seconds cd may have this mode so that it is very difficult but also rewarding to rely on those alone.​

1) The "Inertia bomb" already penetrates shields; it's time to get creative on how to use it.
Regular missiles are for killing system blocks; not for defeating shields. If you need a way around shields, try a cannon. Need to cut through heavy armor? ...Use a laser. Each weapon has its own purpose by design. Think of it as "rock paper scissors" in space.

2) This is overly complex, restrictive and likely to discourage newer players. Besides; placing limitations on how a player sets up his/her launchers is against what Schine intends for the game. They're not likely to indulge this idea.

3) The "Minelayer" is a good example to follow if you want physical representation of missile storage. However, we would need to physically manufacture missiles (as we do mines) and have them either take up storage space or use the missile storage blocks for that purpose. If you want make missiles a limited supply weapon, they will also need a substantial buff to damage, max blast radius and homing capability.

4) ...
- Missiles currently have the longest range of ALL weapons and can be shot down.
- Given that we have full Newtonian physics in StarMade; full reverse while dumping ordnance in the enemy's face is a far better strategy than turning your back and letting them kick you in the pants.
- Turrets (especially small ones) are the first thing to go bye-bye when you get hit by a missile with the shields down.
- Alpha cannons (including C/B) cannot aim; you must line up the whole ship. That's not easy to do when you're flying something the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer. Also, you cannot fire a partially charged laser.

Instead of asking Schine to reinvent the weapons (again) over the next 8 years, maybe it would be better to take a good look at what works and what doesn't with regard to the current weapon systems.

If I were going to ask for any change to missiles and capacity, I'd recommend a "high damage/limited supply" model with a blast radius that scales with damage then top it off with better guidance.

Also, additional AI settings ("set default engagement range", for example) would be nice.

 

[NTIMESc]

This is the type of simple system I would like to see:

• Missile Capacity is determined by Cargo Space connected to the Missile Computer.
• Missile production is handled automatically by the Missile Computer
• For each reload cycle, one missile for each Missile Tube group is produced until the capacity is filled (more on missile volume below)
• During combat missile production is suspended (or possibly just slowed down)

Missile Volume and Number of Missiles:
The amount of missile capacity used is determined by the size of the Missile Tube group plus a proportion of any support/effect systems connected.

Example for a system with 1000 Cargo Space connected:

• Missile Tube Group size = 10
• Number of groups = 5
• Damage Beam Support system size = 25
• Kinetic Effect system size = 50

The volume of each type of block could also be incorporated, but currently they are all 0.1, which is probably way too small, so I will just ignore it, assuming a block volume of 1.0 instead.

Volume of one Missile = (10 +(25+50)/5) = 25.
Number of missiles = 1000 / 25 = 40 missiles.

Of course, the Missile Tube groups need not be the same size. Each group volume would be calculated separately and shown in the weapon stats with it's group.

<edit>
I would also probably ignore the capacity [per block] of Cargo Space when connected to a weapon computer, instead just using the block count as the total volume. (otherwise you would only need 10 blocks to store the 40 missiles in the example)

 

[NeonSturm]

But what if I want 4 big launcher tubes and 12 small ones (2 per side) with 1 loaded, 7 reserve ammo and 64 all-side distribute-able ones?

My first post on page1 is the perfect solution for building freedom and tradeoff with shipmass and realistic space requirements.
The second post on page2 is the perfect solution for use-cases.

What I want is the second thing archived with first. If possible.
Because I think it's a very long-term stable solution for weapons to handle it like that.

 

[NTIMESc]

But what if I want 4 big launcher tubes and 12 small ones (2 per side) with 1 loaded, 7 reserve ammo and 64 all-side distribute-able ones?

As I said in my previous post, group volumes would be calculated individually. The example just used equal groups to simplify it. Every group could be a different size if you wanted. Here is a generalized formula for the example above:

CapacityUsedByAMissile = MissileTubesInGroup + MissileTubesInGroup*(SupportPercent + EffectPercent)

So, for your example of 4 big launchers, say 100-block groups, and 12 small launchers in 5-block groups, with a 60% support system and 50% effect system, the big missiles would have a volume of 100 + 100*(0.6+0.5) = 210 each. The small missile volume would be 5 + 5*(0.6+0.5) = 10.5 each.

As to your question about micromanaging reserve ammo for a single weapons computer with mixed group sizes, that just sounds like a tedious task. If you want a separate ammo supply, then you just use a separate computer with it's own cargo space and the problem disappears.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

My problems with missile capacity are solely that:

1. It's nonlinear in a bizarre way. I basically end up not caring about getting more than 4 missiles. So then, what's the point of having capacity I can change if I never want to change it? It could just be 4 completely.
2. Reload is absolutely nuts with lockons, completely negating the point of being able to store more missiles. Why bother increasing capacity if the recharge on capacity exceeds the reload?

Make it linear and make lockons reload in a sane time and maybe I'll actually put in some missile capacity.

 

[klawxx]

My problems with missile capacity are solely that:

1. It's nonlinear in a bizarre way. I basically end up not caring about getting more than 4 missiles. So then, what's the point of having capacity I can change if I never want to change it? It could just be 4 completely.
2. Reload is absolutely nuts with lockons, completely negating the point of being able to store more missiles. Why bother increasing capacity if the recharge on capacity exceeds the reload?

Make it linear and make lockons reload in a sane time and maybe I'll actually put in some missile capacity.

Yea. You're Absolutely right; it's completely broken at this moment. I also hate the fact that if you have two launchers it only shows the capacity for the first one! It should divide between them or let us allocate instead!

 

[NeonSturm]

So, for your example of 4 big launchers, say 100-block groups, and 12 small launchers in 5-block groups, with a 60% support system and 50% effect system, the big missiles would have a volume of 100 + 100*(0.6+0.5) = 210 each. The small missile volume would be 5 + 5*(0.6+0.5) = 10.5 each.

Mathematically it sounds sane.
But I prefer if players need to make a choice whether to hold large or small missiles.

If you want a separate ammo supply, then you just use a separate computer with it's own cargo space and the problem disappears.

Right.
But as long as it's a choice inferior to one big ammo supply, it's against meta and nobody desires it even tough it would archive the goal to let players make a meta-decision about missile size for defining their ships role.

Let's say you have 1 launcher and capacitors to the max.
Or you build 2 launchers and half (or less) capacitors.
Why do you want capacitors over a second launcher?

_______
Summary:

Yes, it's broken.
There are several ideas how to make it better. Different ideas from different peoples.

But before voting on fixes, let's vote on use-cases we want to have covered and the aspects which need to be considered.
With that list, we can revisit the ideas from peoples and choose which one fits best. (not the most popular ones)

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

Mathematically it sounds sane.
But I prefer if players need to make a choice whether to hold large or small missiles.

Right.
But as long as it's a choice inferior to one big ammo supply, it's against meta and nobody desires it even tough it would archive the goal to let players make a meta-decision about missile size for defining their ships role.

Let's say you have 1 launcher and capacitors to the max.
Or you build 2 launchers and half (or less) capacitors.
Why do you want capacitors over a second launcher?

_______
Summary:

Yes, it's broken.
There are several ideas how to make it better. Different ideas from different peoples.

But before voting on fixes, let's vote on use-cases we want to have covered and the aspects which need to be considered.
With that list, we can revisit the ideas from peoples and choose which one fits best. (not the most popular ones)

I just want SotS dumbfire missile volleys alongside stuff like Star Trek's firing of 6 torpedos sequentially, without unlimited spam of either. Ultimately, I think that just needs a very very small reload for firing delay (like .1 seconds) alongside a capacity that scales somewhat linearly.

 

[NeonSturm]

I just want SotS dumbfire missile volleys alongside stuff like Star Trek's firing of 6 torpedos sequentially, without unlimited spam of either. Ultimately, I think that just needs a very very small reload for firing delay (like .1 seconds) alongside a capacity that scales somewhat linearly.

Very useful input. Because I like this too.

But there is insufficiency in consideration range.
Linear scale (per block) is like 1,2,4,8 on one axis and 1,8,64,512 on three axis because building scales logarithmic.


The way it's usually balanced is with: 1= no hull break. 8= ideal, 64= overkill
3=try your luck (usually not desirable) and 24=a bit more spent for reliability isn't bad when using expendables.
If 24 is too costly, it would be a target for scouting and building exact fitting counters.

1,8,64 are not exact numbers. They are a linear range on a lineal with logarithmic markers.


3 to 6 torpedoes is doubling. A bigger ship would then easily have 12 or even 24 such torpedoes and they wouldn't feel epic anymore.

So Finally, I assume it's about "6 choices to press that button" and not how huge missiles are sized/counted which come out.
This means that it can be penalized in supplying large numbers of individually triggered parts.

 

[Captain Fortius]

The current method IS bad, on that we can agree.

You need a bunch of missile blocks to get enough damage out of your shots, and then this additional requirement was slapped on, which also requires you to have a bunch of blocks just so you can actually shoot your missiles. That's a lot of system blocks to find room for.

In principle I'd be okay with some kind of two part system, if it was done right. A phsyical ammo rack was mentioned, and I believe that's the coolest method; Just imagine watching row upon row of missiles and shells marching into the breech of your weapon. (one of my favourite things to do in old Minecraft was building autoloader TNT cannons with pistons...) Sadly it's also the hardest.

Easiest would be tweaking the current approach. In that case the launcher part needs to be much smaller - The size of the actual missile you're going to fire, while the relation between the launcher's size and that of the storage unit could decide the amount of missiles, or other ammo you can carry. (I mean what exactly is in my launcher blocks if the missiles are not stored there?) Regenerating your supply doesn't make much sense unless there are factories on board, something which only very large ships or stations would be likely to have.
Resupply when you're on a docking chain that has a sufficient amount of missiles in storage, make the missiles via factories.
This way sleek and lethal attack craft would go out on their attack runs, expend their ammo, and would return to their mothership for re-arming, while big ol' gunships with generous ammo reserves would stay in the fight longer.

Treating the missiles and shells as items sounds like a great choice, especially if you can load different types as the situation requires.

I'd like to add, cannons should betreated as physical weapons as well. It has been some time since they have been called "antimatter". We could even have two kinds; one that shoots energy, only requiring power, and a physical one. Both could have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Or perhaps they could perform exactly the same but one would stress the reactor while the other can run out of ammo.

Finally, to once again adress the matter of ships not taking enough damage; Ammo storage should be volatile. Chance of explosions dependant on how full it is.

 

[NeonSturm]

Finally, to once again adress the matter of ships not taking enough damage; Ammo storage should be volatile. Chance of explosions dependant on how full it is.

I see space age weapons require much more power per ammo weight and defender also requiring heavier shielding.
Rail-gun ammo weight may not matter very much compared to fuel and barrel weight.

If it's an antimatter missile, the antimatter containment may probably more valuable than any targeting, especially when it has to stand against point-defense with pointed armor tips and micro-deflectors or whatever you would/can install for missile-HP.
In a crazy case, some may find it useful giving missiles a beam-weapon against anti-missiles.


Modern artillery for example has modular shots that can have varying firing strength, varying detonation warheads and varying shells which work like half-artillery, half-missile (but that's difficult and expensive at about 1000* earth-gravity and higher accelerations).

 

[Ghent96]

...Instead of asking Schine to reinvent the weapons (again) over the next 8 years, maybe it would be better to take a good look at what works and what doesn't with regard to the current weapon systems...

Well, nothing works, so... :/

Missiles are so entirely broken right now, they're unusable. Nothing is fixed at all, far from it. Did Schine want people to abandon using missiles entirely, and abandon the game? Mission accomplished. I gave them a fair chance, refit an old missile turret. Didn't work at all. Tried making new turrets, tried experimenting. Results below. Spoiler: they didn't work.

There should be functionality but also aesthetic to missiles. Maybe WE EFFING LIKE TO SEE 26 MISSILES COME OUT OF A TURRET or ship and gundam/robotech/DAKA their way through space to slam a target. So what. Let us. Empower players. Enable players. If there's lag, if the AI aren't accurate, then fix those problems.

My experimental turret has 1 missile computer, 1 slave of 1 beam, 4 tubes not touching each other in hopes of giving 4 missiles shot out. Logically this would need a capacity of 4 missiles, right? ... NO, I put 40 missile capacity modules on that dang turret, and still only 1 dang missile shoots out and it's reload time isn't even close to what is specified in the ship stats and gun window stats. Much, much longer. Doesn't matter what mode it's in: focused, volley, unfocused - NOTHING fires 4 missiles from those 4 output tubes, ever. I even tried a bobby AI firing 4 separate missile computers on 4 separate tubes, and no, only 1 missile at a time. I put 80, 100, 500 freaking missile capacity blocks on the turret. No. Just 1 missile, each, fricking, time it fires. That's not working at all.

Missile AI accuracy needs to be separate from cannon/beam AI. I agree with earlier statements that players feel compelled to shoot more missiles because previous shot missed.

We get that the "missile capacity mod" is supposed to be like a little factory or cargo that makes and holds the missiles to send to the tubes, which have a reload stat, then fire, but we need stats on how they function in the game. IN THE GAME. in the block info window in our inventory, as the block description. We need to see those stats in build mode system stats. We can't see anything right now. There's no documentation at all about how fast missiles are made in the capacity blocks. ...and what logic is there in 1 capacity block only holding 0.1 or less of a missile? That's not fair to players. 1 capacity block should = 1 missile. The tubes themselves have a reload stat that should govern how fast missiles are "made" /reloaded, and it's affected by the slave module type (cannon, beam, missile).

If not, then you're going to have to add a new block called a Missile Factory block to control how fast missiles are made and put into the capacity blocks, to reload into tubes, to actually give players control over this in their ships.

 

[MrGrey1]

My experimental turret has 1 missile computer, 1 slave of 1 beam, 4 tubes not touching each other in hopes of giving 4 missiles shot out. Logically this would need a capacity of 4 missiles, right? ... NO, I put 40 missile capacity modules on that dang turret, and still only 1 dang missile shoots out and it's reload time isn't even close to what is specified in the ship stats and gun window stats. Much, much longer. Doesn't matter what mode it's in: focused, volley, unfocused - NOTHING fires 4 missiles from those 4 output tubes, ever. I even tried a bobby AI firing 4 separate missile computers on 4 separate tubes, and no, only 1 missile at a time. I put 80, 100, 500 freaking missile capacity blocks on the turret. No. Just 1 missile, each, fricking, time it fires. That's not working at all.

Missile capacity goes on the ship, not the turret.
This might help. It's not 100% accurate as the tick rate gave me problems IIRC but it's ball park at least.

 

[Ghent96]

that's great and all, thank you for clarifying, but the system is still broken, per above (and needs documentation in-game)

 

[IR0NSIGHT]

extra effects mod has visual effects for missiles, might want to check that out.
afaik the missile capacity was buffed a LOT by QF, to a point where its almost unnoticable. i can't guarantee it, but i think you have to put a blob of capacity on the mothership and then a single block on each docking level, bc of a bug (at leasts thats what i do).
and then just see if spamming all missile outputs at once uses up to many missiles. works fine for me

 

[Madoushi]

I've been thinking more and more about abandoning missiles entirely for torpedoes, basically just missiles built from blocks, with propulsion and explosive warheads. I don't know if the fighter AI would let these work as intended, and I'm terrible with logic blocks anyway so even getting them to launch is a nightmare, but ideally I'd find it way more compelling

 

[DrTarDIS]

I've been thinking more and more about abandoning missiles entirely for torpedoes, basically just missiles built from blocks, with propulsion and explosive warheads..., and I'm terrible with logic blocks anyway so even getting them to launch is a nightmare, but ideally I'd find it way more compelling

those are fun to build but hell to use. Pretty much for exactly the reasons you're bad at.

I don't know if the fighter AI would let these work as intended...

Short answer: not since weapons rework, AI has been glitched and crappy since 2017.

Long answer: The AI system likes to hover around he range of the longest-range weapons system on the entity. Explosive blocks are not considered weaponry. So AI won't reliably "ram" opponents. Back in the day with a push-effect-logic-drive and the (now removed) pulse-weapon(0m range) you could make some not-completly-useless torpedos. These days the shortest range is... well outside that.

Of course, the explosive blocks had crappy damage and radius at the only time in the past it was possible to make the bobby-AI system work for ramming, though they at least theoretically "ignored armor" up until the weapons-rework broke them completely.

There's and idea for a mod that could be useful in this: something make turret/bobby-AI more customizeable in engagement range and activities. With that you might have a change to torpedo.