Reduceing the size of turrets with weapon emitter blocks

[Brain_Dawgs]

Also, it's hardly an issue if it gets blown off. You can just put the weapon back on your hotbar instead of having it controlled by the little turret.

Because you can give a battleship's main gun to (depending on server accuracy settings) an AI capable of hitting things further away than is humanly possible (due to ships being only a few pixels to the human eye at long range) that can turn at extremely high speeds, which is why I think it should still require mass enhancers.

Also, it's hardly an issue if it gets blown off. You can just put the weapon back on your hotbar instead of having it controlled by the little turret.

Not if the weapon-powering blocks were in a docked component of the ship like the turret base.

 

[alterintel]

After reviewing everyone's posts, I think it would be a good compromise to my original post to have weapons output only link-able and extend through one turret axis block. This would be on par with say a modern day tank for example. So the base of the turret would contain the most weapon blocks and also have to move in one axis. The barrel would contain a small fraction of weapon blocks, and be able to to move in both axis. If that makes sense.

This way you would still need mass enhancers to move all the mass. and due to the reduced size of the barrel, the turret would be easier to disable.

 

[Lecic]

Maybe the weapon modules should just blow off inside your ship or at least the weapon computers.

I think a better solution would be to just make it require mass enhancers.

 

[Andem]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the new films don't count. Now, tiny turrets are impossible curently. maybe something that would shrink the turret?

 

[GRHayes]

So I found this thread here, which is almost what I'm talking about.

Instead of pressing "R" to make one of the weapon blocks the output, you could also be able to C-V an emitter block to the weapons computer. This would enable the weapon blocks to be buried in the ship but weapon's output would come from the emitter block instead.

Emitter blocks should also be able to be attached via wireless blocks as long as both wireless blocks are docked/attached to the same mother-ship/station. This would enable a huge 10,000 block AMC which is built into the ship to be fired from a single emitter block attached to a turret on the ship.

Best of all this would enable powerful sleek looking ships without hulking turrets hanging off of them.

I really don't have an issue with it. The reason is that the second the emitter block gets destroyed the gun is worthless. While a standard turret made out of a would still be able to fire to some degree as long as the computer isn't destroyed.

Also you can see laser systems that use fiber-optics to deliver emitter in real life. Not to mention RF transmitters for microwaves and other systems. If you think a microwave can't be a weapons think of a 50,000 Watt microwave or more powerful and what it would do to you. They cook birds that fly through the beam.

 

[Nickizzy]

After reviewing everyone's posts, I think it would be a good compromise to my original post to have weapons output only link-able and extend through one turret axis block. This would be on par with say a modern day tank for example. So the base of the turret would contain the most weapon blocks and also have to move in one axis. The barrel would contain a small fraction of weapon blocks, and be able to to move in both axis. If that makes sense.

This way you would still need mass enhancers to move all the mass. and due to the reduced size of the barrel, the turret would be easier to disable.

I think this is one of the best ideas so far, this would work quite well, as long as it's and option. I've found most reasons for ugly turrets is that the barrel has to have all the weapons power of the entire turret, in reality your "barrel" is usually just a tube on pistons, all of the firing mechinism and firepower is in the base or in the main body. In starmade some things just would be to overpowered like 100k dps turrets on the scale of piont defense(it may be only 15 blocks, but it's got half the shielding of a titain) and I think a certain percentige of the primary system should have to be on the main barrel(and I don't know how multible groupings would work), maybe 20%, rounding up, so 100 by 100 turrets couldn't have little 5 block(core, dock, weapon computers, and single weapons module) barrels hidden inside, you would need long tubes or short and stubby squares, to fire your cannon.

 

[FatCobra]

I like the idea of emitters for turrets. How ever this should be for beam/energy type weapons. Cannons and missiles should not work via emitters.

 

[lupoCani]

The fact that capital ships can only ever fire forwards is, and has always been, ridiculous. We can look at almost any sci-fi we want, there's practically no precedent for this kind of norm. Small ships dart around, dodge impacts and fire forwards. Big ships sit still, tank damage and slug it out in whatever direction it's needed. Certain directions might be more favorable than others, but most of them work just fine. Not to mention broadsides. We see a lot of broadsides in media.

Thus, I support the concept. Big ships need to be able to fire their main weapons, independently of their main body.

I'm not so sure about this implementation. There needs to be balancing, for example, a powerful weapon should always aim slowly, even if it's fired through a small turret.

I would also like, for once, to see this implemented with physical blocks. Every bloody thing in this game is an invisible link. Power transfer, item transfer, logic, shield dispersal, etc. This one thing I'd want to use something tangible. Something like, one output on the mothership, one intake on the turret. In the turret's default orientation, these must touch. When the turret moves, the link remains as long as both blocks are not destroyed. The gun on the mothership must connect physically to the output block, as if it was supposed to fire the shot through it.

 

[Cryocasm]

After reviewing everyone's posts, I think it would be a good compromise to my original post to have weapons output only link-able and extend through one turret axis block. This would be on par with say a modern day tank for example. So the base of the turret would contain the most weapon blocks and also have to move in one axis. The barrel would contain a small fraction of weapon blocks, and be able to to move in both axis. If that makes sense.

This way you would still need mass enhancers to move all the mass. and due to the reduced size of the barrel, the turret would be easier to disable.

This is the best way of doing it.

I was going to suggest before reading this that the limit of rail dockers for slaving parts should be 1, thereby making it necessary to embed any additional slaves into a deeper turret well (this increases complexity of ship building because you now need to have a deep turret well to store the large traversing section, just like on a battleship) and it adds balance in that you can't literally link an ungodly amount of weapons which are somewhere else inside the hull.

The other suggestion would be to limit this to overdrive computers only, but instead allow overdrive computers up to 2:1 (200% performance boost instead of 100%). This way energy costs increase, total weapon damage is still dependent on the amount of weapon modules inside the final turret segment, but size is dramatically reduced because a lot of the weapon's firepower actually comes from the first turret segment in the form of overdrive blocks.

 

[Kyoretsu]

While I can't put into words how strongly I disagree with OP, I have to say you're not as right as you think you are (at the very most, this idea should be a server config that is off by default). In the older TOS days phaser banks appear to just shoot beams out whatever way they want, but in later series and the recent movies, phasers are actually small turrets that are sometimes inlaid into the hull and sometimes protruding.

USS Kelvin

USS Enterprise

LOLOLOL, using JJ Abrams as the justification for your disagreement upon the rest of the entirety of the Star Trek universe is laughable.

 

[Lukwan]

Brains... (zombie attracted to necro-post).

I think the way the weapons work are well balanced between turret and main weapons. After all, this is game and balance trumps 'I wanna'.

Movies have to have dramatic looking battles and logic may fall prey to the needs of the plot. Films make for great inspiration but not always for useful reference. SM is game and has it's own special needs. Of course turrets could be altered to make it easier to get a sleek profile but taking limitations away from turrets or expanding the firing arc of main weapons only blurs the distinction between them.

It should be brilliance of design that makes a ship look sleek while also being uber-deadly. This should be trade-off because that is how engineering works: you have to design within the limited parameters of your specifications. If you want sleek, plan for it with sufficient internal space to house systems out of sight. If power is a bigger requirement then you make the choice to add bulkiness. If you are 'gud' you can have both.

Picture a WW2 battleship. Turrets are it's main weapon and the entire ship is essentially a delivery system to get these turrets into battle. A submarine: has a tiny canon on it's deck but it's main weapons are torpedoes...in the main hull & requiring facing and target lock to fire. We may be playing an SF game but I think there is still a need to respect the limitations of design that come with any technology.

 

[jayman38]

I could only agree with this suggestion with some nerfing rules implemented. (And I want to agree for sleeker turrets.)

1. The turret will still need to be supported by mass enhancers, as if all the weapon blocks were in the turret barrel. To keep from going overboard, maybe reduce the mass enhancer requirement by half (server configurable.) This will be the primary nerf to keep turrets from being too powerful for a small size.

2. Increase the turret weapons' energy consumption by 10%, as if the emitter were a second weapon output.

3. Require multiple emitter blocks, based on the number of weapon blocks, server configurable. (E.g. Each Emitter supports 1000 beam blocks, 10 cannon blocks, 100,000 pulse blocks, or 10 missile blocks. (Again, server configurable.) These numbers will be influenced by the type of weapon in the secondary slave slot, so you can relieve the number of emitters by adding pulse as a secondary support slave. Therefore, you don't want to make the pulse support count too big.

4. The main shields stop protecting turrets when the shields drop to 75%. (In other words, the turrets become vulnerable in half the time.)

5. The weapon system becomes completely disabled and cannot be re-enabled in the hotbar if the emitters are damaged to the point where they can't support the number of weapon blocks. (Strangely, the weapon system can become operational again, if enough weapon blocks are damaged so that the number of available emitters on the turret can support the new number of weapon blocks. However, this will rarely be an issue, because generally the turret will be stripped off the ship completely before the weapon blocks inside the main ship can be reduced.)

6. Swarming missiles should prioritize turrets.

 

[alterintel]

I always love a good necro especially when there's further discussion to be had.
so here's my compromise:

After reviewing everyone's posts, I think it would be a good compromise to my original post to have weapons output only link-able and extend through one turret axis block. This would be on par with say a modern day tank for example. So the base of the turret would contain the most weapon blocks and also have to move in one axis. The barrel would contain a small fraction of weapon blocks, and be able to to move in both axis. If that makes sense.

This way you would still need mass enhancers to move all the mass. and due to the reduced size of the barrel, the turret would be easier to disable.

 

[Madman198237]

I like alterintel's idea. However: Make it so that effects and secondaries can be placed in the base. That way, it acts like a real weapon (Effects are in the ammo, sheer firepower comes from size/barrel length) and is not too overpowered.

 

[Sabrewulf]

I agree with effect and secondaries emitter.

 

[jstenholt]

LOLOLOL, using JJ Abrams as the justification for your disagreement upon the rest of the entirety of the Star Trek universe is laughable.

You can say what you want about JJTrek's content, but if Gene Roddenberry could have made his Treks look that good, he would have.

 

[Dire Venom]

I really like the alternate suggestion +1
Also:

The fact that capital ships can only ever fire forwards is, and has always been, ridiculous. We can look at almost any sci-fi we want, there's practically no precedent for this kind of norm. Small ships dart around, dodge impacts and fire forwards. Big ships sit still, tank damage and slug it out in whatever direction it's needed. Certain directions might be more favorable than others, but most of them work just fine. Not to mention broadsides. We see a lot of broadsides in media.

Thus, I support the concept. Big ships need to be able to fire their main weapons, independently of their main body.

I'm not so sure about this implementation. There needs to be balancing, for example, a powerful weapon should always aim slowly, even if it's fired through a small turret.

This has been a major irk for quite a while.
If I want to make a cool looking battleship for example I can.
But to then get all the turrets firing I need to do a boradsied, which means I can no longer fire or lock on with any of the weaponry on the mothership (because it has to be facing "forwards")
I would suggest that the direction a weapon can be fired in depends on the computers orientation, thus you can switch between different camera blocks, fire and aim weaponry facing in that direction

 

[Batavium]

I would suggest that the direction a weapon can be fired in depends on the computers orientation, thus you can switch between different camera blocks, fire and aim weaponry facing in that direction

You can do exactly that. But controlling the ship and aiming the crosshair is hard with the off axis controls you then have. Limiting the weapons that are able to fire to those that point at any one direction would be a bad thing. Since then you would no longer get all the cool arcing missiles you get when setting weapon computers to face in another direction.

Note that in most SciFi a ship that sports a massive beam weapon or cannon does need to get line of sight before it can fire on target. It's gotta have a weak point.

 

[Snowtiger256]

Most Starfleet ships of the Star Trek franchise (specifically TNG, DS9, VOY) basically don't have turrets at all, they use radially (and linearly) mounted phaser strips that are very hard (if not impossible) to replicate in SM, due to the fact that the strip can fire a beam (or even multiple beams) from any given point along the strip. This is also the main reason SF ships can fire their phasers at virtually any angle around the ship, even without turrets. Technically these strips are just long lines of emitter arrays similar to broadside cannon arrays on naval ships.

TOS and ENT are exceptions of this rule, since ships in these two serieses are not as advanced in tech level, TOS Enterprise has multiple turret-style phasers allowing them to fire off-axis if need be, but that was rarely depicted in the show due to budget reasons. ENT Enterprise has retractable turret-mounted Phase cannons (not Phasers) to allow off-axis functionality.

Massive ship killer weapons in ST (like the impromptu main deflector beams see in TNG) do still require the ship to be turned towards the target, because it's being generated in a fixed array on the ship.

 

[Madman198237]

A fairly realistic example of this that comes to mind is Halo's UNSC Archer pod. They are fired in any direction, from a number of separate launch points, and can be aimed at anything they so choose. Yet, as of now, you'd have to point the ship at a target in order to fire them.

We need (First up) a decent free-cam mode, then the ability to lock weapons off-axis (Cannons should definitely be able to fire in a cone, instead of a straight line, allowing for semi-aimed broadside weapons). Especially missiles, which should be able to acquire as a target anything that the scanners can detect...which means no limits on aiming.