1. 15th of October, 2019: SMD is currently under maintenance, the site may go down while we are working on it. Apologies for the inconvenience.
    2. We've removed some functionality from SMD in preparation for a migration to new forum software.

    Weapon Update 2.0 Projectile Combination Suggestion

    Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Muffin_man17, Nov 4, 2018.


    Should the roles for projectiles combination C+B and C+M be swapped.

    1. Absolutely!

    2. No, keep as is.

    3. I want different effects for these combinations.

    Results are only viewable after voting.
    1. Muffin_man17

      Sep 29, 2014
      Cannon Combinations
      The core idea of each combination is mostly unchanged, but they behave in different ways. It’s possible we still add or change parts of them depending on feedback, but the overall role of each support should stay the same.

      • Default: An all-around decent cannon, doesn’t excel at anything

      • Cannon + Cannon: Fast firing machine gun with fast projectiles. It uses the Cone: Wide-> Narrow damage shape.

      • Cannon + Missile: Charge cannon with left click to charge, release to fire. The longer it is charged, the better the efficiency and damage of that shot. It also uses the Cone: Wide-> Narrow damage shape.

      • Cannon + Beam: A slow firing artillery cannon with a narrow -> wide cone damage shape. Even when over penetrating, it will be relatively efficient, but it is hard to hit.

      Is it just me or should the Cannon + Missle and Cannon + Beams roles be swapped?

      I believe that the C+B should have the charge mechanic and it's damage + efficiency rises that longer you charge but still prefer a narror-> wide cone damage type.

      While the C+M should be a slow firing artillery cannon but still utilizes the Cone: Wide-> narrow damage shape.

      It just feels backwards to me but what do you guys think?
      • Like Like x 1
    2. kiddan

      kiddan Cobalt-Blooded Bullet Mirror

      May 12, 2014
      It's certainly opposite to how those weapons 1.0 combos worked. Should it be changed, though? If weapons like beam + missile are also charged, I don't think it's necessary.
    3. NuclearHolocaust

      Sep 1, 2013
      Cannon+ Missile partially took over the role of Cannon+Damage Pulse.
      Cannon+Beam took the other part.

      I think using Cannon+Beam as a sniper makes sense(like in Weapons 1.0), the high damage and high reload time it now has is ok for that role, the narrow to wide cone is fitting well. Also longer range would fit this role.
      But the slow projectile is somewhat unfitting for that, also since it is some type of cannon, where higher damage is usually linked to a faster projectile(exept for some kind of warhead).
      Cannon+Missile could take over the role of artillery like Cannon+DamageBeam was before, as the charging cannon it is, with a high maximum charge and slower projectile using the wide to narrow cone(more like a warhead).
      Cannon+Cannon is fine.

      It is possible to change this via config by the way.
    4. NeonSturm

      NeonSturm StormMaker

      Dec 31, 2013
      I like and hate the system from the beginning.

      Like, because it allows more flexibility and is more static than the Antimatter-Cannons we had and checkerboard patterns with abusable range/rof/dps/velocity sliders.

      But the whole idea behind the weapons system is totally strange to our understanding of physics.
      The bigger something is, the more dedicated it should be to a certain task, but that's difficult to setup with so much varying server-rules about ship-mass and the builders ideas of how a ship should look like with many equal turrets, etc.

      I would like many distinct weapon build reqirements, but similar possible damage. Grey are my initial thoughts before the final statement.
      • For beams, the problem would be overheating, not available ammunition.
        • Good in combination with armor to store heat and to put all excess energy to use (traders have powerful thrusters but pirates might still be faster and more agile, so thrusters are no use to traders but their heat-power-recycling and they can use "fuel produced by electric power during flight" during combat to act as usual-drainers and adversly as in-combat-generators for a limited time). Four uses as generators / reason to have big generators, heat-sinks, thrusters and even flamethrowers.
      • Cannons also need hull to absorb recoil.
        • Recoil energy could even power beam weapons AND be used to propell your ship out of firing range at the same time, thus have three-uses as thrusters, weapons and generators.
      • Missiles are in my opinion a last-resort to brutal violence, because they have zero investment into reuseable weapon parts.
        • When you use missiles, you can not win a fight because of your expense. You could only lose less by saving a ship via supplementing your other weapons or punish an opponent.
        • They should be handled the same as purchasable jump-charges, even if they auto-regenerate due to "passive reproduction while out-of-combat, built with second-class loot or insurrance-money."
      • Plasma reactors/generators may additionally reason heat sinks and favour plasma weaponry to expend heat for damage while EM reactors/generators are more tied to beam weaponry.
      Plasma-reactors or modules may have a short lifetime which is represented by a malus for long-distance weapons or weapons which regenerate during combat and a combat bonus on weapons which are only usable in the early-mid combat stage.
      EM-reactors or modules prefer prolonged combat and shield strength.

      In StarMade, you have one block (any weapon block) for damage output, 2 blocks for damage-absorption (shield/hull) and 2 blocks for combat-regeneration (shield/energy generators) which is ... boring.

      I prefer a system where you puzzle your weapon system together after defining the primary role of a ship. 2 examples (traders, carriers).
      • Traders have steady EM-Generators for their massive jump drive and reliability and they could have fast shield regen and moderate capacity and high-velocity turrets which are pre-charged before combat.
        • Their weapons are more efficient in the first 3-5 seconds. Usually they use weapons to redirect smaller space particles away from a collision course or for mining, thus these weapons are more efficient at distance against armor than against close shielded targets.
        • Their thrusters are powerful and need above-average time to reach travel velocity. They can have a long burst time for planetary escapes and equally long heat-cooldown for their burst period, but are the reason for perfect heat sinks during prolonged flight and a high amount of passively generated fuel.
      • Carriers have 2 reactors, type EM and type Fusion. They are also more difficult to maintain than a battleship or destroyer. Dreadnoughts are heavy-only and reliant on fleets while homeships are often large trade-ships outfitted with modules or carriers with either the largest hangar or largest cargo hold being a living habitat.

        • Fusion generators are tied to the ammunition- and onboard-fuel-production system, burst thrusters and laser-emitters.
        • EM generators are tied to shield upkeep/recharge, jumpdrive plus railguns which feed on the magnetic field and they need scouts because their own sensors are overloaded with their very own magnetic flux.
        • Their main wepaons are their regular fighters and drones which utilize mostly plasma technology, gunships and interceptors with EM-technology and Elite-ships with fusion technology.
        • Fighters use mostly cannons, mines as bombs and a few beam weapons on turrets; drones use plasma weapons and engines, the carrier has big missiles, moderate cannons and many beam-weapons, gunships use EM for 2 main railguns, 2 cannons for closer combat and beam-turrets as missile/drone defense, to spend excess energy or cover blind angles with 2 bombs as tactical option and suicide option and 3-5 missiles for when they underestimated the threat-level or heavy combat.
        • They may also have some plasma technology but only use it to escape planet gravity and it's built in an array, so that they can be used to replace plasma technology in their fighters without adaption.
      The reason why we need so many different generators on a Carrier is, that they are cheaper in small and medium sized because mass-produced plus that they can use each ones buffs.
      Destroyers on the other hand would not specialize in so many different types and only use Fusion-technology.
      Battleships are better off with EM for passive and shield/jump modules and plasma for most active combat modules or active production.

      Ofcourse Fusion is not equal another Fusion-technology. Different types of fusion/antimatter reactor can be constructed as plasma or EM drives or mixed output types, as well as any more primitive technology uses primarily either heat/em/kinetic energy of any reaction.
      Different approaches could have different mixes (thrusters may produce 70% kinetic/fusion, 10% em, 20% heat/plasma for example while dedicated reactors prouce 40% em plus 60% heat and convert per choice 60% heat to plasma or 50% to kinetic or 40% to em. Another option produces either 40% to kinetic or 50% to em).

      This is the big puzzle which we have in the real life.

      You don't have to go over-complicated when building a ship other than a dedicated carrier, but learn for your role and afterwards learn the rest of mechanics if interested.
      #4 NeonSturm, Nov 7, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
    5. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Professional Quickfire Hater

      Nov 8, 2017
      This turns the game into one of those space shooters. If I want to play Star Conflict, I'll play Star Conflict. I don't want this kind of stuff in Starmade.
      Also, this would require another weapons update and nobody wants that.
    6. Captain Fortius

      Aug 10, 2013
      How did you reach this conclusion?

      Let's say the real-life space race turned violent. The Endeavour space shuttle cost 1.7 billion dollars to build. One AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missile costs a little less than half a million. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that they can be modified to work in space, or a suitable missile could be manufactured at similar costs.

      You can buy 34 thousand such missiles at the price of one space shuttle, and assuming the hypothethical soviet or chinese space shuttle equivalent has a similar price, scoring a kill with a mere ONE of those missiles, and wasting the other 33,999 units, you manage to cause greater economical damage to the enemy than to yourself.

      Of course regular jetfighters rarely carry more than 2-6 which is usually perfectly sufficient to score one or more kills.

      Let's say, for whatever reason arming the space shuttle this way is infeasible, and you're left with launching significantly heftier ground-to-space missiles at your enemies. At 18 million dollars apiece, the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 is still a bargain, affording you to buy 944 units for the price of one shuttle.

      On top of that, add in all the futuristic sci-fi fantasy stuff and an industry that got used to space warfare, hundreds or thousands of years in the future, and I doubt squashing your enemy with a missile would become any worse of a deal than it is now.
      Certainly, none of the shows, movies, and games I know considered it too much of a loss to win a fight with missiles.
      And then there's whole layers about different manners of operation, how a missile can have greater chances to hit, require simpler, lighter launching mechanisms than a cannon of similar destructive potential, etc.

      TLDR: Missiles are more expensive than cannon shells, but so long as you don't go rabbit hunting with ICBMs, it's still quite economical to use them.
      #6 Captain Fortius, Nov 12, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
    7. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Professional Quickfire Hater

      Nov 8, 2017
      Yes. I like games that don't try to limit you unreasonably like this
      • Like Like x 1
    8. NeonSturm

      NeonSturm StormMaker

      Dec 31, 2013
      A nice information btw, BUT you forget in your price-calculation, that space-age shuttles are like today's aircraft.

      They are that expensive because nobody mass-produces them and we can't use todays standard tech but need special equipment.
      In Sci-Fi, they are standard-tech and have perhaps only 1/2 the price tag plus you can produce them cheaper, so they have only 1/5 price left.
      I know, with 1/5 price tag, it's still about 7k missiles per shuttle and even about 190 units of the "already-standard RIM-161".

      In space, explosions do not do that much damage, unless they happen inside a hull corner; especially not when they explode against shields.
      If you respect shields and PD-turrets on your target, you may need 2 or 3 of them. Shields are common anyway, because they help to reduce atmosphere entry heat or surviving EM-storms or whatever else which even a trader might encounter. Perhaps stray asteroids...
      Now I can only count about 2-3k missiles and 60 RIM-161 which you can compare to the effectiveness of 1k air2air / 20 RIM-161.
      Defensive in SM is higher than in real life where you count on offensive and intel mostly.

      Interceptor crafts are dedicated maybe 1/3 to combat and 2/3 to utility like thrusters and general computers. Public shuttles at max. 1/10 to combat. Drones and dedicated short-range fighters have maybe 2/3 combat, but need a carrier for hyperspace and utility (drones are like remote weapon systems).
      That's the effectiveness of 100 to 333 air2air / 2-6 RIM-161.
      2-6 matches the number of missiles on a modern fighter and I take that as a hint that it is a good number.
      With 100-333 missiles you only get short/medium-range ones compared to primitive cannons before the industrial age and only modern weapons are as destructive as RIM-161.

      To your second conclusion about no Sci-Fi complaining about costs:
      In StarTrek-Voyager, they had heavy-hitter torpedoes, but rarely used them because of a lack of supplies for their torpedo bays.
      Even then, using torpedoes was often only a means of self-defense rather than offense, because if they need to rely on missiles, they wouldn't be able to survive in long term (You can't always rely on brute force only. Strategy when to use weapons is important too).

      You also have to accont for: When you used missiles, the enemy knows you used non-replenishable weapons and words spread to other pirates with quantuum-speed rather than light-speed in space!
      You need at least twice the required ammount to not only show you have weapons but also be an enemy which can't be attacked unpunnished.
      For example, a police fighter may have 2-3 missiles which take 20 minutes to replenish.
      A military interceptor would have 4-6 missiles and would be re-supplied from the mothership in 5 minutes.
      The mothership itself may hold 100-333 missiles without own hyperspace / light-speed capability (can't target ships with microwarp and are only against short-ranged fighters), but only 4-6 missiles with which it could destroy similarly-sized ships at long range.

      EDIT / NOTE: You rarely oppose a bigger enemy directly, so why do you need to kill more than 4-6 similarly-sized ships anyway?
      EDIT 2: I know it's not getting implemented as hard-restriction. It's just an example of how off it is, to not account for the price tag of production and preparation and the protected economy, etc ... by putting price 1:1 to ship costs.
      #8 NeonSturm, Nov 13, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 13, 2018
    9. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Professional Quickfire Hater

      Nov 8, 2017
      This isn't getting implemented.
    10. Captain Fortius

      Aug 10, 2013
      Most of that price is because of the expensive materials, and incredible precision needed to make them work at all.

      But what about main battle tanks, mass produced by the thousands? Pretty much the only reason those beardy ragheads in the middle east can pose any danger to them, is because a surplus missile or rocket launcher is super cheap in comparison. = They buy some cheap weapons, their enemy loses some expensive tanks.

      A missile is smaller and simpler than anything it was meant to kill. Ergo, cheaper. And no spaceship, nor any other creation of mankind or nature will require it's own pricetag's worth of appropriate ammunition to be thrown at it to destroy. IRL battles tend to be full of one-hit kills. Games space that out a bit, so the fun's not over too soon.

      Heck, mankind's history would have been pretty damn peaceful if killing your enemies was more damaging to yourself.

      Oh, and "standard" is just part of the RIM-161's name. I doubt the US Navy gets to shoot down satellites on a regular basis.

      Then there's the stuff under your spoiler tab. It has to be some form of trolling. I mean it's largely incoherent, seemingly intended to win your argument more by sowing confusion rather than employing reason, with arbitrary numbers spewn in randomly, and on one special part even saying something is equal to one third of itself
      , before going on to calling Star Trek: Voyager as a main example of warfare - a series about a science ship hopelessly lost in unknown space. I'm pretty sure they were short on everything, not just torpedos.
      #10 Captain Fortius, Nov 15, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
      • Like Like x 1