Forums » Suggestions
They really need alot of work, I see two major problems with them.
1 they are too small for what they can do. Simply put, nothing else in the game is that strong for it's size, plus their low mass makes them get bounced around too easily.
2 They lack the ability to engage numerous small fast targets, only the missile turrets can effectivly take on small targets, and the way they do it feels cheap.
They seem to do an okay job against the capitol ships, at least if the cappie doesn't decide to destroy them.
I've got what I think is a solution to both problems.
1 Remodel the turrets to be bigger, and have multiple AGT turrets. Don't need anything fancy, it could be shaped like a caltrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caltrop.jpg) with agt turrets on each end. Simple enough in concept.
As for taking out capitol ships, a few turrets armed with 4 pairs of stingray launchers would do the job nicely.
The only "problem" with this is ships could sit 1km back and try and snipe the turrets with rail guns. I should note They can already do this just hiding behind roids from the missiles since at 1km the slow moving gauss they currently fire is anything but hard to dodge. But that is what the strike forces are for.
1 they are too small for what they can do. Simply put, nothing else in the game is that strong for it's size, plus their low mass makes them get bounced around too easily.
2 They lack the ability to engage numerous small fast targets, only the missile turrets can effectivly take on small targets, and the way they do it feels cheap.
They seem to do an okay job against the capitol ships, at least if the cappie doesn't decide to destroy them.
I've got what I think is a solution to both problems.
1 Remodel the turrets to be bigger, and have multiple AGT turrets. Don't need anything fancy, it could be shaped like a caltrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caltrop.jpg) with agt turrets on each end. Simple enough in concept.
As for taking out capitol ships, a few turrets armed with 4 pairs of stingray launchers would do the job nicely.
The only "problem" with this is ships could sit 1km back and try and snipe the turrets with rail guns. I should note They can already do this just hiding behind roids from the missiles since at 1km the slow moving gauss they currently fire is anything but hard to dodge. But that is what the strike forces are for.
I can't equip turrets with anything even approaching the firing rate of an AGT. The amount of network spam causes a lot of people to have problems. The firing rate has to be lower, on par with the existing turrets. This obviously creates limitations, which is why I expanded their shot collision model to basically fire a fairly high-speed VW bus. However, if I increase the speed or size of the shots much further, people on slightly slower connections will be completely unable to see them coming or attempt to strafe out of the way.
I don't have any problem with making the turrets physically larger or heavier, but I'm not sure that that will solve much. It will also introduce some other challenges, relating to engine-tweaking and navigation for objects with higher mass.
I don't have any problem with making the turrets physically larger or heavier, but I'm not sure that that will solve much. It will also introduce some other challenges, relating to engine-tweaking and navigation for objects with higher mass.
+1 to OP
any yet turrets are so easily destroyed....... why are the pirates whining again?
He's "whining" that the turrets aren't effective enough. Pay more attention.
+1 to making turrets larger. Makes more aesthetic sense.
Damn you network limitations! AGT turrets would be a nice touch. What if just a few were added into the mix of the gauss turrets? Maybe as a purchasable upgrade. While we're on the subject, it would be nice if the missile turrets were a little more fallible.
Damn you network limitations! AGT turrets would be a nice touch. What if just a few were added into the mix of the gauss turrets? Maybe as a purchasable upgrade. While we're on the subject, it would be nice if the missile turrets were a little more fallible.
pizza has it right, im saying they need to be BETTER not worse.
Inc, don't the teredons have piles of neutron turrets? Could those be used instead, just given a really wide firing arc, or do people find them to be problematic for the same reasons, and do they also report the problem with players using agt?
Inc, don't the teredons have piles of neutron turrets? Could those be used instead, just given a really wide firing arc, or do people find them to be problematic for the same reasons, and do they also report the problem with players using agt?
Teradons do have a lot of neutron turrets. They were kind of an early experiment in capship defenses, and I've never used that many turrets on a ship since, as the Teradons also cause traffic-density issues for some people.
The problem is just number of shots per second, whether it's 5 turrets with AGTs, or 10 turrets with neutrons, or 20 turrets with the current weapons. If I add enough neutron weapons to make turrets genuinely scary, we're back to being problematic again.
That's how we ended up in the current situation, balancing the impressive-but-not-scary energy-projectile turrets with a couple of terrifyingly-accurate homing missiles to give some practical meaning to the defenses. Certainly not ideal.
A better option is probably something like "flak", where the fired projectile isn't just energy, and will explode with area-effect on proximity to a target. That would keep the projectile-count and shot-per-second at the current rate, but the individual shots and near-misses would be a lot more worrisome to attackers. However, there always a challenge to find the right balance between "devastating" while not "too-devastating".
The problem is just number of shots per second, whether it's 5 turrets with AGTs, or 10 turrets with neutrons, or 20 turrets with the current weapons. If I add enough neutron weapons to make turrets genuinely scary, we're back to being problematic again.
That's how we ended up in the current situation, balancing the impressive-but-not-scary energy-projectile turrets with a couple of terrifyingly-accurate homing missiles to give some practical meaning to the defenses. Certainly not ideal.
A better option is probably something like "flak", where the fired projectile isn't just energy, and will explode with area-effect on proximity to a target. That would keep the projectile-count and shot-per-second at the current rate, but the individual shots and near-misses would be a lot more worrisome to attackers. However, there always a challenge to find the right balance between "devastating" while not "too-devastating".
+1 to visually larger turrets, and much heavier. At least the size of a Moth.
-1 to AGT defense turrets or multiweapon turrets
Turrets now makes no sense. Too small for so much firepower.
For me, solutions are:
1. Make turrets larger and heavier. Can be same model scale up. Or a new model...
2. Make turrets AI multithreaded. Now all turrets in sector only engage one target. Instead, each turret should engage the nearest enemy/ untargeted.
Now, when 2 ships enter a sector, all turrets engage one of them at time. Make them multi-target, able to engage up to 4 targets at once.
And if population raises, make station deploy more turrets with when more than X enemies are present.
-1 to AGT defense turrets or multiweapon turrets
Turrets now makes no sense. Too small for so much firepower.
For me, solutions are:
1. Make turrets larger and heavier. Can be same model scale up. Or a new model...
2. Make turrets AI multithreaded. Now all turrets in sector only engage one target. Instead, each turret should engage the nearest enemy/ untargeted.
Now, when 2 ships enter a sector, all turrets engage one of them at time. Make them multi-target, able to engage up to 4 targets at once.
And if population raises, make station deploy more turrets with when more than X enemies are present.
A better option is probably something like "flak", where the fired projectile isn't just energy, and will explode with area-effect on proximity to a target. That would keep the projectile-count and shot-per-second at the current rate, but the individual shots and near-misses would be a lot more worrisome to attackers. However, there always a challenge to find the right balance between "devastating" while not "too-devastating".
Huh. Brings to mind fond memories of the Flak Drones from Ares.
Huh. Brings to mind fond memories of the Flak Drones from Ares.
+1 for bigger turrets. for what they do, they should be at least the size of moths and as massive as a fully packed one (how massive can one pack an XC?)
-1 for multiweapon turrets. I'd rather see more of them.
+many to flak. VO could really use flak. a single projectile with large radius proxy fuse and splash is damn useful for defense purposes.
-1 for multiweapon turrets. I'd rather see more of them.
+many to flak. VO could really use flak. a single projectile with large radius proxy fuse and splash is damn useful for defense purposes.
The amount of DAMAGE and RANGE of the capgauss turrets is what makes them scary currently. They're way more dangerous than every neutron and gatling turret on a teradon, since they hit you far outside the range where your weapons are effective.
Maybe if the turrets instead of having 2 capgauss had 1 capgauss and 1 capital gatling turret to cover up-close fighters.
Maybe if the turrets instead of having 2 capgauss had 1 capgauss and 1 capital gatling turret to cover up-close fighters.
hell, even adding one agt turret to each defense turret would be an improvement, and with how they are spread out, how bad can it be for lag, unlikely you could get in range of more than 2 at once.
Currently as it sits, the turrets that are responsible for most of the losses when assaulting a station are the TWO missile turrets, the other 8 usually don't hit at all, or so infrequently as to be only harassing fire.
Currently as it sits, the turrets that are responsible for most of the losses when assaulting a station are the TWO missile turrets, the other 8 usually don't hit at all, or so infrequently as to be only harassing fire.
Threadjack: Give the station shield, armor, and guns, and remove turrets altogether.
a selectable permeable shield over the docking bays would work too, only lets you in if you have clearance. Once you break it then you can land a freighter full of troops to storm the station.
A larger turret would actually be easier to hit making them less useful ..... Inc would need to severely increase their armor to compensate.
They could try replacing two of the energy turrets for missile ones....
They could try replacing two of the energy turrets for missile ones....
The missile turrerts are already kluge
hey we couldn't figure out how to make a stationary bot shoot you when the hive has no problem, so lets just use uber up homing missiles
Sorry inc, but that's just the way it looks from this side.
Making them something other then specks would be an improvement, first they are simply unrealistically small. Secondly, their freaking tiny, you cant look at them really from any distance over 100 meters without using a 40 some inch plasma screen. If they need more armor they need more armor, currently they survive 8 tubes of swarms, maybe more, I never experimented to see exactly how much armor, but that's about 300k.
As for the spammieness issue, I'm not sure it matters, if somebody is using hardware that cant handle 3 agt's firing (the turrets are far apart enough you'd only get a couple at a time), then they probably already don't do combat, or at-least don't expect it to work.
hey we couldn't figure out how to make a stationary bot shoot you when the hive has no problem, so lets just use uber up homing missiles
Sorry inc, but that's just the way it looks from this side.
Making them something other then specks would be an improvement, first they are simply unrealistically small. Secondly, their freaking tiny, you cant look at them really from any distance over 100 meters without using a 40 some inch plasma screen. If they need more armor they need more armor, currently they survive 8 tubes of swarms, maybe more, I never experimented to see exactly how much armor, but that's about 300k.
As for the spammieness issue, I'm not sure it matters, if somebody is using hardware that cant handle 3 agt's firing (the turrets are far apart enough you'd only get a couple at a time), then they probably already don't do combat, or at-least don't expect it to work.
hey we couldn't figure out how to make a stationary bot shoot you when the hive has no problem, so lets just use uber up homing missiles
It is fair to call the homing missiles a kludge, but the rest is totally erroneous. The hive uses identical targeting code to the turrets. The hive is no better at hitting a distant ship with a given weapon than the turrets are. There are significant challenges to leading off a target from some distance away, when factoring in shot-flight-time and network latency. Add any kind of random motion to the target, invisible due to latency, and it becomes nearly impossible. This isn't something that we, or anyone else are going to "figure out"; it is a fundamental barrier of a realtime game over this type of network. Our prediction is actually pretty damned good. At range we can improve the hit rate by making the weapon instantaneous (beam weapons), by closing the distance to the target (homing missiles), or possibly by broadening the area effect to include more of the range of positions the target may move to during the shot-flight-time ("flak").
At some ranges there is a hit benefit to firing a lot of shots with a randomized offset (AGT), basically because they more effectively occupy the "range of positions" the enemy may move to between the time of the shot and the time of possible-hit. But this is outweighed by the network traffic issue. (On a side-note, this could partially be improved by the creation of a totally new type of weapon with a different network architecture; I've advocated this for years but it would require a lengthy development period that we've not yet chosen to allocate).
As for the spammieness issue, I'm not sure it matters, if somebody is using hardware that cant handle 3 agt's firing (the turrets are far apart enough you'd only get a couple at a time), then they probably already don't do combat, or at-least don't expect it to work.
Like I said in my original response from Friday, at the top of the thread, this is a network spam issue. This has nothing to do with client rendering speed, or how fast your computer may be. This is purely a reflection of the fact that not everyone is on a 15ms 5mbit connection. Too many object-adds per unit time is generally a bad idea.
Now all turrets in sector only engage one target. Instead, each turret should engage the nearest enemy/ untargeted.
This may actually be one of the more useful points made on this thread. The current turret system is capable of sharing multiple targets amongst the group of turrets, but the bias of these values could probably be tweaked to improve defensive situations. Combined with the "flak" concept, that could make an effective enough hit rate to let me drastically reduce the damage-per-shot, giving people some chance of attacking, while still having defenses be useful.
It is fair to call the homing missiles a kludge, but the rest is totally erroneous. The hive uses identical targeting code to the turrets. The hive is no better at hitting a distant ship with a given weapon than the turrets are. There are significant challenges to leading off a target from some distance away, when factoring in shot-flight-time and network latency. Add any kind of random motion to the target, invisible due to latency, and it becomes nearly impossible. This isn't something that we, or anyone else are going to "figure out"; it is a fundamental barrier of a realtime game over this type of network. Our prediction is actually pretty damned good. At range we can improve the hit rate by making the weapon instantaneous (beam weapons), by closing the distance to the target (homing missiles), or possibly by broadening the area effect to include more of the range of positions the target may move to during the shot-flight-time ("flak").
At some ranges there is a hit benefit to firing a lot of shots with a randomized offset (AGT), basically because they more effectively occupy the "range of positions" the enemy may move to between the time of the shot and the time of possible-hit. But this is outweighed by the network traffic issue. (On a side-note, this could partially be improved by the creation of a totally new type of weapon with a different network architecture; I've advocated this for years but it would require a lengthy development period that we've not yet chosen to allocate).
As for the spammieness issue, I'm not sure it matters, if somebody is using hardware that cant handle 3 agt's firing (the turrets are far apart enough you'd only get a couple at a time), then they probably already don't do combat, or at-least don't expect it to work.
Like I said in my original response from Friday, at the top of the thread, this is a network spam issue. This has nothing to do with client rendering speed, or how fast your computer may be. This is purely a reflection of the fact that not everyone is on a 15ms 5mbit connection. Too many object-adds per unit time is generally a bad idea.
Now all turrets in sector only engage one target. Instead, each turret should engage the nearest enemy/ untargeted.
This may actually be one of the more useful points made on this thread. The current turret system is capable of sharing multiple targets amongst the group of turrets, but the bias of these values could probably be tweaked to improve defensive situations. Combined with the "flak" concept, that could make an effective enough hit rate to let me drastically reduce the damage-per-shot, giving people some chance of attacking, while still having defenses be useful.
Wouldn't a "flak"- style weapon create a lot of network overhead as well? Historically those were explosive shells rapid-fired from small-caliber cannons that would detonate at a specified range, flinging shrapnel at aircraft nearby. (If any 20th century war buffs see something wrong here and want to correct me, please do...)
The turrets ARE too small. They can easily hide inside the angle-error present in the game so that they're totally un-hittable with anything non-homing at range (~500m). This makes homing missiles with a proximity fuse pretty much the only option for attacking them. Even contact-detonating missiles like Stingrays will miss one pretty consistently if you fire them at just the right angle.
The turrets ARE too small. They can easily hide inside the angle-error present in the game so that they're totally un-hittable with anything non-homing at range (~500m). This makes homing missiles with a proximity fuse pretty much the only option for attacking them. Even contact-detonating missiles like Stingrays will miss one pretty consistently if you fire them at just the right angle.
I'm allways willing to contribute...
I've requested many times some FLAK turrets. And almost going OT, but still on subject, I'd like to see a mix of ideas:
1. NEW turret "plataform" model, larger than a Moth,, with one long-range weapon (Gauss, missile) and one or two short-range weapons, as a FLAK. Long range as now, making 1st defense circle.
2. Station turrets. Using the small existing model attached to stations, firing Flaks and short range missiles only. They complete (not replace) the floating ring of turrets, as another ring of defense. Destructable, of course, and using the same models of other existing turrets, but remaining very close, or touching, the station. Shorter range >1500m , as 2nd devense circle, only shoot at enemies past 1st defense lines (i.e., closer than 1500m to station). Number of turrets depending on station size.
3. For Flak weapon, we already have the perfect gun: Flares. Just add sunflares or jackhammers to a turret mount and make all them explode at max reach (~1200m). Dumb fire, prox fuse, blast radius... all check, just "also add a 15sec timer fuse".
4. Multi-threaded AI. Smart enough to distribute fire against more than one enemy at once.
Yes, this isn't perfect. But increases a lot the immersion factor, being much more logical and closer to RL area defense concepts, and the flak barrier will be impressive!
Note that the second line of defenses have a smaller radius than swarms...
I've requested many times some FLAK turrets. And almost going OT, but still on subject, I'd like to see a mix of ideas:
1. NEW turret "plataform" model, larger than a Moth,, with one long-range weapon (Gauss, missile) and one or two short-range weapons, as a FLAK. Long range as now, making 1st defense circle.
2. Station turrets. Using the small existing model attached to stations, firing Flaks and short range missiles only. They complete (not replace) the floating ring of turrets, as another ring of defense. Destructable, of course, and using the same models of other existing turrets, but remaining very close, or touching, the station. Shorter range >1500m , as 2nd devense circle, only shoot at enemies past 1st defense lines (i.e., closer than 1500m to station). Number of turrets depending on station size.
3. For Flak weapon, we already have the perfect gun: Flares. Just add sunflares or jackhammers to a turret mount and make all them explode at max reach (~1200m). Dumb fire, prox fuse, blast radius... all check, just "also add a 15sec timer fuse".
4. Multi-threaded AI. Smart enough to distribute fire against more than one enemy at once.
Yes, this isn't perfect. But increases a lot the immersion factor, being much more logical and closer to RL area defense concepts, and the flak barrier will be impressive!
Note that the second line of defenses have a smaller radius than swarms...