1. We've removed some functionality from SMD in preparation for a migration to new forum software.

    [Weapons Update] Missile capacity blocks should have inverse effect strength with missile strength

    Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW, May 19, 2018.

    ?

    Good idea?

    Poll closed Jun 2, 2018.
    1. Yes

      7 vote(s)
      87.5%
    2. No

      1 vote(s)
      12.5%
    1. Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

      Joined:
      Jul 4, 2013
      Messages:
      421
      Played around in the dev build a bit to determine if I can actually make a somewhat accurate replica of how the Defiant in Star Trek shoots.
      While I greatly appreciate not needing cannons slaved and like the new projectile (reminds me of the dumbfire missiles from Sword of the Stars), I found missile capacity to be an issue.
      Getting a volley size of 20 means basically making a brick of missile capacity blocks the size of a mansion, even with dinky little missile tubes.
      Also not looking forward to shared capacity between the lock-ons and the dumbfires...

      I suggest the following:
      1. As missiles scale up in strength, their models should get bigger so you know which ones are the dangerous ones.
      2. Missile capacity should be per-missile computer (have to link them).
      3. Missile capacity should have a really high effect per block for very small groups, getting less and less as missiles scale up.
       
      • Like Like x 6
    2. EricBlank

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      484
      This is generally a very good idea, but we also want to prevent huge missile spam. Perhaps there should be a soft cap to the quantity of missiles a given computer can store, after which additional missile capacity becomes increasingly more expensive, in conjunction with launcher size vs capacity blocks. Like 20 or something.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    3. Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

      Joined:
      Jul 4, 2013
      Messages:
      421
      Maybe, but I think that spams of small missiles should be allowed as a tactic to overwhelm PD. That's what dumbfire missiles did in Sword of the Stars (actually not sure if PD even bothered with them, it's been a while) and it was really nice for medium ships bombarding medium or bigger ships up close.
      If it's mainly to stop lag from them, a cap is fine, but it should be somewhat high, like maybe if you have just one missile tube, you could get 100 missiles from a ton of capacity blocks and call it a fireworks show.
       
    4. Coyote27

      Joined:
      Jul 30, 2017
      Messages:
      193
      I'd like to suggest, in conjunction with these - especially missile magazines being linked to individual weapon computers-
      4. AI holds off on firing missiles until the capacity is fully recharged, otherwise adding capacity to turrets won't change very much.
       
      • Like Like x 4
    5. Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

      Joined:
      Jul 4, 2013
      Messages:
      421
      Sounds like a good idea.
       
    6. Nosajimiki

      Joined:
      Sep 14, 2017
      Messages:
      669
      No. You can already use logic to do this, but by forcing AI to wait, you are eliminating a lot of valuable options such as the ability to fire smaller salvos against smaller ships.

      If you want your turrets to wait, you can use a delay clock. You can make these pretty compact by feeding a normal clock into a chain of flip-flops . For example. 8 flip-flops on a normal delay clock creates a 64 second delay which can be used to turn your AI back on after about a minute of your last salvo. If you need something more specific, like 40 seconds, you do a 7 flip-flop chain that connects to initiates a second clock chain 5 flip flop long (if you care to be that precise).

      Another option is using a wireless remote to manually turn turrets on and off, this lets you alpha or dps your missiles at will, fire a partial salvo, or even let you save your salvo for the exact moment when you are at an optimal range.

      There are really tons of things you can do with logic right now to customize your firing pattern that this mechanic would make impossible to achieve.

      #2 was my first thought to, but it basically goes against Schema's entire reason for adding missile capacity which it to limit missile spam.
      #3 is exploitable with multiple computers just like the old power-fall-off thing for output spam turrets.
       
    7. Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

      Joined:
      Jul 4, 2013
      Messages:
      421
      I put no faith in Schema's reasoning.
      I also don't think it'll be an exploit if done in a way that high-capacity, low damage missiles aren't worth it on DPS; the niche I see is distracting the PD with worthless spam that could also be used to mess up tiny fighters.
       
    8. Nosajimiki

      Joined:
      Sep 14, 2017
      Messages:
      669
      I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning in the sense that the mechanic feels illogical, but it does help idiot proof the game against people DoSing sectors. One exploit people were using was firing so many tiny missiles that they would cause their enemies missiles to glitch out, then they would do their actually fighting with beams to destroy then then defenseless missile boat. If you went missile-cannon, you could make a system that was only a few hundred blocks to completely disable any enemy's ability to fire their main weapons.

      I would love a more natural feeling mechanic that achieves the same goal, but I have not seen anyone suggest one yet.

      As for the exploit part, missile capacity is a non-linear return. 30 missiles cost twice as much ammo blocks as 20 missiles; so, letting people split it out violates an intended limit of the game and allows you to store a lot more missiles with fewer blocks. It would also multiply reload if each magazine was reloading 1 missile every few seconds instead of a single magazine.

      Don't get me wrong, this is a very logical proposal... but also very exploitable.
       
    9. Coyote27

      Joined:
      Jul 30, 2017
      Messages:
      193
      Okay, you have a good point and I retract my suggestion.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    Loading...