Forums » Suggestions

Capital ship weapons

Nov 08, 2005 Person link
Ok, I've been thinking on this a while, and it might be cool if all captital ships, (I'm talking about the really large ones, not the trident and company,) had a variety of beam weapons. Each turret, or maybe only some turrets, could have three weapons incorporated in it:

1) Cappy anihilation gun
Reload time: 20s
Damage: 100,000
Energy: ?
Scatter: 1°
Max range: 1000m
Auto-aim: literally none. This way, small targets would be almost impossible to hit.

2) Anti-missile defense device - If one of these beams hits missle or rocket, it detonates
Reload time: .05s
Damage: 0
Energy: ?
Scatter: 5°
Max range: 500m
Auto-aim: as current

3) AGB, (Auto Gatling Beam)
Reload time: .2s
Damage: 500
Energy: ?
Scatter:1°
Max range: 500m
Auto-aim: as current

*by scatter, I mean that there is a cone of X° radius, (or whatever the proper term is for a cone's flare), where shots could potentially land

Besides these characteristics, there would also have to be some energy limitations or the like, but you get the just of it.

Ok, discuss!
Nov 08, 2005 icbm1987 link
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11566

Hehe... thread necromancy isn't a bad thing... is it?

And wouldn't the AGB be a giant Popcorn cannon?
Nov 08, 2005 Person link
Popcorn cannon/Gatling beam.

I searched under at least 6 keywords pertaining to this, and found nothing.

/me worships the necromancer

Anyway, good idea? Bad idea? Uterly and insanely terrible idea?
Nov 08, 2005 Beolach link
/me is all for a wide variety of Capital Ship weapons.
Nov 08, 2005 LostCommander link
Each turret should only have 1 weapon to encourage having a full crew. Why would there have to be energy limitations? Aren't we putting a reactor inside something that size? Other than that, this sounds great. By keeping the number of different weapons down, that helps keep development time down. I think the AGB should have a maximum range of 600m though to match fighter-carried energy weapons. Also, the annihilation gun will have to be kept down in number (1-4/ship) for sanity's sake. Otherwise they may start being used some on fighter craft...
Nov 08, 2005 icbm1987 link
I'm just going to be really amused when someone goes into a KOS area with a capship and farms the Strikeforces.

:p

(The search term I used was "Megarail" because I remembered the old thread. :P)
Nov 08, 2005 LostCommander link
Well, clearly, there will be capital-class Strike Force vessels (likely HACs) before there are user-usable capital ships. HAHAHAHA!!!
Nov 08, 2005 icbm1987 link
Oh my...

Cappie Strike Forces... errrr...

Scary.
Nov 08, 2005 Lil Jon link
Oh, shiznay. That's one bon-diggity scary thought.

/me can't wait for user-controlled capital ships

All aboard the F.O.S.H. Crunk!
Nov 09, 2005 Cunjo link
IMHO, the coherent beam weapons need to go.

for one, it doesn't look all that great in battle.

I'm fine with the approximate damage rates given for each weapon, but I'd rather see it work like an AGT (I know that the AGT-like weapons earlier had a problem hitting things) but much, much faster, so as to make evasion extremely difficult within 600 or so meters in anything heavier than hog. and no scatter for these, as their non-spontaneous rate of travel would do enough to make them fallable.

The Auto-aim-less heavy blasters for capship killing would move even faster than the anti-fighter ones, and deal enough damage to kill a fighter in one hit... if it could somehow hit it with their slight inaccuracy, slow fire rate and lack of aiming mechanism. (think Star Wars turbolasers VS anti-fighter turrets)

IF the anti-missile weapons were implemented, it might make sense to use a coherent beam weapon for them (like the airborne LASER ICBM defense systems the military is developing) because missiles don't complain when they're repeatedly shot down by an unavoidable beam turret.

And yes, I'd like to see these weapon batteries on the HAC soon, since the insta-kill mining beams are getting old... fast.

/givemoney devs 2c
Nov 09, 2005 Phaserlight link
*sigh*

This couldn't have been added to this thread?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11566

Ah well.

Cunjo, I think the beam turrets are intended to be used to shoot down incoming torpedoes once we get targetable warheads. They are supposed to be a point defense weapon, not an offensive weapon. I'd like to see offensive cap ship weapons with ranges up to 10x that of the beam turrets. They also make very effective anti-fighter turrets, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. A fully armed cap ship would probably have a mix of point defense and offensive turrets.
Nov 10, 2005 Cunjo link
current beam weapons are not though. I'm all for point-defence weapons... once there's a point to having them.

and yes, a dramatic increase in range as well as speed would be welcome for the offensive weapons, although I'd like to see perhaps a specific variety for heavy anti-capship fire, and one for anti-fighter defence... more variety is good, as well as aesthetically-pleasing.
Nov 10, 2005 Shapenaji link
I think there's a problem with having too much light fighter defense... you get what I call, the "No Girls Allowed" phenomenon.

Basically, everybody gets together around the cap ship, so that they're completely invincible, making a rule like "No Serco Allowed" and then sitting there, hoping beyond hope, that someone will TRY to attack them.

EDIT: At which point, they will blast them into oblivion in less then a second, the guy who gets the kill will feel very happy, and everyone else will feel very unsatisfied.
Nov 10, 2005 Cunjo link
well I didn't say light fighter defence should be so effective as to make -THAT- a problem... I just want to make them more effective than the heavy weapons, so attackers wouldn't be vaporized instantly by the heavy blasters...