StarMade Dev Blog - The Weapons Update

    Discussion in 'Game News' started by schema, Apr 18, 2018.

    1. Matt_Bradock

      Matt_Bradock The Shrink

      Joined:
      Aug 4, 2013
      Messages:
      806
      Well, now that beams latch on, I think that will be much less of a problem?
       
    2. AssIn9

      Joined:
      Sep 1, 2013
      Messages:
      143
      Since missiles have a count to them, Can they be transferred from one ship to another? using small missile ships to attack but load the missiles from another ship back a couple sectors that has more missile creation capabilities!
       
      • Like Like x 1
    3. JinM

      Joined:
      Jun 11, 2016
      Messages:
      1,087
      A missile-reload support beam would be funny. :D
       
    4. Xskyth

      Joined:
      May 25, 2014
      Messages:
      84
      yes it would :)
      but mayybe instead of a resupply beam, if the smaller missile ships dock to a mothership that has supplies, then the smaller ship can reload faster?
       
      • Like Like x 2
    5. MeRobo

      MeRobo Scrub

      Joined:
      Apr 1, 2015
      Messages:
      351
      Okay, so I read somewhere (probably a discord server) about how the shield ignoring characteristic of the M/m bomb could potentially be rather unhealthy for game balance. A possible way to adress this problem would be to only have a certain percentage ignore the shields.

      Here's an example: Let's say the shield ignoring percentage is 50%. A bomb dealing 1000 damage then would deal 500 damage to shields and 500 to the ship itself.

      The actual numbers for the shield ignoring percentage in my opinion should be figured out with testing, preferiably with the help of experienced players in this area (so not me). I think the percentage of damage ignoring the shields should not be higher than 50% because otherwise the incenitve to try to down shields would be too low. Then again the percentage shouldn't be too low because then it would mean that more damage is dealt to shields and bombs may be capable of effectively downing shields on their own.

      So now on to the two main reasons why I think this wouldn't be too bad of an idea:
      1. Shields would no longer be completely useless against bombs.
      2. There would be an incentive to drop the shields of a target before making a "bombing run"

      Another idea I had while writing this would be to have bombs ignore shields, but reduce the damage dealt based on how much shields are still left (actual numbers obviously would be subject to balance testing). If, for example, the damage would be reduced by the percentage of shield left, bombs would do nothing against a fully shielded target, but become increasingly effective with lower shield value for the target. This also should achieve the two aforementioned goals of giving shields a purpose against bombs as well as incentivizing the use of another weapon system while the shields are still fully intact.
       
      • Like Like x 2
    6. EricBlank

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      436
      That seems a good idea.

      The devbuild is pretty unstable right now, it keeps crashing, and it seems like 90% of shots fired from, say, cannon/cannon or cannon/beam that should have hit, simply dont register. Thats got to get fixed before release. I got a server shutdown trying to test a big cannon against a large target, and a null pointer exception when i tried to fire a beam at that same target
       
      • Like Like x 2
    7. arkahys

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2018
      Messages:
      47
      I see the 0.201.003, there is anywhere a changelog ?
       
    8. Crimson-Artist

      Crimson-Artist Wiki Administrator

      Joined:
      Sep 10, 2013
      Messages:
      1,614
      unless its something really significant then im afraid no. we usually just have to play and see whats new.
       
    9. dwwojcik

      Joined:
      Jun 22, 2013
      Messages:
      196
      I disagree, I like the idea of ships (especially large ones) being vulnerable to a specific specialized attack. Shields shouldn't necessarily be the end-all of defense, point defense and screens (as in smaller supporting ships) should matter was well. It seems to me the reasoning behind missile+missile was less in terms of player vs. player and more fleet vs. fleet. This is a good thing, at least assuming we'll eventually get more competent non-player ship control that can actually handle different ship roles in a fleet.
       
      • Like Like x 2
    10. MeRobo

      MeRobo Scrub

      Joined:
      Apr 1, 2015
      Messages:
      351
      I don't necessarily dislike the idea, however, I'm not sure whether it's current implementation is healthy for the game balance (it appears to be a mechanic which could, depending on some values, switch from completely useless to pretty OP with the middle ground being hard to find, if at all. I'd take game balance over an admitedly cool idea). These shield ignoring bombs appear to me to make non-homebase stations even more useless than they already are. This is due to stations being stationary and therefor taking away the whole being extremely hard to aim bit which is to my understanding part of the justification for completely ignoring shields.
       
      • Like Like x 3
    11. dwwojcik

      Joined:
      Jun 22, 2013
      Messages:
      196
      For starters, stations should have their own point defense and screens. Presumably once we have this warship AI I'm imagining, smaller ships will be able to defend stations as well as larger ships.

      Plus, armor hopefully becoming not useless should help. Stations not being able to move is a strength as well as a weakness, they can be armored as much as you want.

      You're not wrong though, stations do kinda suck. But the missile+missile is just so darn cool, I'd rather buff stations than nerf missile+missile. Maybe something can be done with station-specific reactor chambers.
       
      • Like Like x 3
    12. MeRobo

      MeRobo Scrub

      Joined:
      Apr 1, 2015
      Messages:
      351
      Okay, maybe my intent wasn't totally clear. I wanted to give shields (still being outperformed by AMS) a bit of purpose against bombs (here especially the first idea applies). the damage split between shield and hull could be acompanied by a rise of the "base"damage (for example, if the base damage would be increased to 150% of it's current value, you'd be doing 75% of the damage through shields you'd do now but the aforementioned 150% once they are dropped).
      I personally would prefer a bad and a good defense against a certain weapon (in this case bombs), not a completely useless one and one that works (and in case of all kind of missiles you'd get three defenses, preferably with AMS being the best, whether shields or armour should be the intermediate solution is up to debate (both has it's pros and cons)).
       
    13. kikaha

      Joined:
      Jul 10, 2013
      Messages:
      591
      Hi !

      V 0.201.004 Huge drop in FPS.... :(

      Edit : nevermind...
       
      #53 kikaha, Apr 23, 2018
      Last edited: Apr 23, 2018
    14. JinM

      Joined:
      Jun 11, 2016
      Messages:
      1,087
      Jo guys, did someone try out the lock-on missiles? Do they work now or still miss their target in 95% of the cases?
       
    15. Nosajimiki

      Joined:
      Sep 14, 2017
      Messages:
      668
      I'd predict docked battery style exploits all over again.

      That said, it would be nice it ammo inherited up but not down so they worked more like old style self powered turrets so you could use small turret missiles in conjunction with big main body missiles.
       
    16. Elemorej

      Joined:
      Mar 2, 2015
      Messages:
      9
      Hi !

      For the Missile/missile, you forget the accuracy of the weapon.

      If hit is hard, the balance are make.

      Shema has said, the bomb has initial velocity equal to ship and fly straight.

      So you must fly right to you target, shoot very close, turn to another direction immediately after and pray for not undergo the explosion.

      Is not easy thing and its worst if your shoot must do from above to below (if the velocity is really the same that our ship).


      I think to wait the real operation of the bomb and make adjust after no?
       
      • Like Like x 1
    17. Ithirahad

      Ithirahad Arana'Aethi

      Joined:
      Nov 14, 2013
      Messages:
      4,104
      That would be acceptable, but would need something to prevent exploitation... perhaps it should only work with the loading rail, and ships on load/unload rail could not fire weapons? :thinking:
       
      • Like Like x 2
    18. kikaha

      Joined:
      Jul 10, 2013
      Messages:
      591
      Tried to shoot missile without moving yet ? :D
       
    19. Crimson-Artist

      Crimson-Artist Wiki Administrator

      Joined:
      Sep 10, 2013
      Messages:
      1,614
      I find the charge aspect of the cannon+missile combo redundant. There is few if any reason for you to use an uncharged shot cuz the reload time is exactly the same for a fully charged shot. Unless the aim was to prevent the weapon from being too versatile when it comes to combating armor density it doesnt really make a lot of sense.

      This would be a lot better if the reload time was more dynamic, getting longer the more charge you put into a shot. This would also make it so uncharged shots can be fired faster (but not quite as fast as neutral cannon)
       
      • Like Like x 7
    20. MeRobo

      MeRobo Scrub

      Joined:
      Apr 1, 2015
      Messages:
      351
      while I agree with you, it is important to set the uncharged reload high enough to not end up with a "semi auto" C/c and therefor a more flexible weapon which can do the same as C/c but also more.
       
      • Like Like x 2
    Loading...