Gunships
- Thread starter LauriFB
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1
I love Starbase, it is full of features that I have long awaited, but could not be provided by other titles. But what I love more are large capital ships with turrets and cannons, as well as missiles. From the moment I saw the trailer I have been overjoyed that I could build a large (small compared to many other games of this type, disappointingly, but the complexity of them is most noteworthy) and complex ship, full of manned turrets and other weapon systems. I remain hopeful that I will be able to build larger vessels than the Centurio at the end of EA.
But the removal of turrets as they are now is absurd, capital ships should at no point, and in no universe be reliant on tripod mounted machine guns to defend themselves. I cannot even imagine what people will say when they load into the game on EA release (or launch day) and find out that in a game about spaceships, they need to arm anything larger than a fighter with a bunch of tripod mounted MG's for it to be viable.
I have read this thread thoroughly and understand why the current rotating turrets do not work properly, but if this is the permanent solution to the problem, I will definitely be looking elsewhere for my shipbuilding enjoyment. I cannot imagine fighting out in the open on a mounted MG while fighters sever your limbs with missiles and bullets, they cannot be protected well, because if they are encased at all, they have terrible visibility, or will be encased in glass, which I already see as an issue with the current turrets. and tripods with humanoids manning them wont be able to aim very high compared to current solutions. I also find issues with the fact that there will need to be more of them, because one or two barrels cannot possibly replace the 4 gun turret emplacements we have now.
I see no way in which this system can be utilized where large ships are comparable in firepower to having that material invested in fighters or torpedo boats instead. Also, these weapons will be weaker than fighter armament, because if we are being realistic here, you will have weak capital ship weapons of this type, or you will have weapons of this type too powerful for their size. If this is the case, why not just give everyone a rifle and tell them to point it out of the window? Because it should not be much different at that point.
This proposed solution also seemingly has a lack of variety in weapon types. I could be wrong with some of this, but as like many others, I can only watch the game, and not play it. I hope a solution which allows for real turrets is found, as this change would be a major letdown to those who enjoy capital ship gameplay. I apologize for my post being somewhat messy, it is my first here, and sorry about my complaining, but I have a strong opinion of the matter and wanted others to know it.
But the removal of turrets as they are now is absurd, capital ships should at no point, and in no universe be reliant on tripod mounted machine guns to defend themselves. I cannot even imagine what people will say when they load into the game on EA release (or launch day) and find out that in a game about spaceships, they need to arm anything larger than a fighter with a bunch of tripod mounted MG's for it to be viable.
I have read this thread thoroughly and understand why the current rotating turrets do not work properly, but if this is the permanent solution to the problem, I will definitely be looking elsewhere for my shipbuilding enjoyment. I cannot imagine fighting out in the open on a mounted MG while fighters sever your limbs with missiles and bullets, they cannot be protected well, because if they are encased at all, they have terrible visibility, or will be encased in glass, which I already see as an issue with the current turrets. and tripods with humanoids manning them wont be able to aim very high compared to current solutions. I also find issues with the fact that there will need to be more of them, because one or two barrels cannot possibly replace the 4 gun turret emplacements we have now.
I see no way in which this system can be utilized where large ships are comparable in firepower to having that material invested in fighters or torpedo boats instead. Also, these weapons will be weaker than fighter armament, because if we are being realistic here, you will have weak capital ship weapons of this type, or you will have weapons of this type too powerful for their size. If this is the case, why not just give everyone a rifle and tell them to point it out of the window? Because it should not be much different at that point.
This proposed solution also seemingly has a lack of variety in weapon types. I could be wrong with some of this, but as like many others, I can only watch the game, and not play it. I hope a solution which allows for real turrets is found, as this change would be a major letdown to those who enjoy capital ship gameplay. I apologize for my post being somewhat messy, it is my first here, and sorry about my complaining, but I have a strong opinion of the matter and wanted others to know it.
Last edited:
Original idea included changing rotating turret mounts to work only on stations. Now that I've learned about the other uses, we need to come up with alternative solution. I was mostly focused on seated turrets and issues with them.
Currently the plan is to ignore issues and leave everything as-is until we come up with better solution. Tripods will be introduced first without changes to existing stuff.
Currently the plan is to ignore issues and leave everything as-is until we come up with better solution. Tripods will be introduced first without changes to existing stuff.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 576
So, I've been thinking a bit about this, cuz I'm a thinker! Ok, lame joke aside, perhaps a static seat emplacement of a special variety could be placed inside ships to control turrets. Instead of being a seat, it could be a box made of oninom, with a window portion (I wish I was good at modeling) that requires the "top" and a side to be exposed on the exterior of the ship to function.
An endo sits in the box and takes control of a turret, or turret array. They can either control the turret through the window (to aim) or through a camera mounted in the center of the turret mount.
Making this control box heavy (oninom is heavy) and larger would reduce the number of these being used on fighter sized ships to 1 or 2 if they wish to have any measure of maneuverability.
This is just an idea to get rid of the whole separation issue that was mentioned. Where the stator and the table separate and cause the ship to spontaneously disassemble in a limited fashion.
An endo sits in the box and takes control of a turret, or turret array. They can either control the turret through the window (to aim) or through a camera mounted in the center of the turret mount.
Making this control box heavy (oninom is heavy) and larger would reduce the number of these being used on fighter sized ships to 1 or 2 if they wish to have any measure of maneuverability.
This is just an idea to get rid of the whole separation issue that was mentioned. Where the stator and the table separate and cause the ship to spontaneously disassemble in a limited fashion.
From the video's I've so far seen, big ships seem to be missing the armor + weight.
If you plan of heavy class ships to be useful while also removing the speed.
Why not look into adding heavy class items, gravity drives (a thruster for heavy ships that will always make them move to a minimal amount)
Reactive armor that is heavy, needed to be powered and absorbs/negates some types of weapon damages.
It just seems like things need to be added not removed for heavy ships.
you guys are making a great game! don't be pressed now by having to remove stuff.
If you plan of heavy class ships to be useful while also removing the speed.
Why not look into adding heavy class items, gravity drives (a thruster for heavy ships that will always make them move to a minimal amount)
Reactive armor that is heavy, needed to be powered and absorbs/negates some types of weapon damages.
It just seems like things need to be added not removed for heavy ships.
you guys are making a great game! don't be pressed now by having to remove stuff.
Gunship classification for us is second-smallest ship size, the first multicrew ships basically. While gunships definitely will use all of the current building budget our intention is not to stop to them.
I guess this is part of the mixup here; I'm discussing ships which I consider small in the grand/future scale, while at the same time they are largest ships for a while in reality.
I guess this is part of the mixup here; I'm discussing ships which I consider small in the grand/future scale, while at the same time they are largest ships for a while in reality.
the current turrets have some fatal flaws
https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/gunships.1656/page-2#post-13540
https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/gunships.1656/page-2#post-13540
I do not understand why majority of players here defend non-operational turrets? With current Internet tech it is just not possible to have people from e.g. EU and USA playing together on a single ship, operating turrets and having at least some decent experience. It is not the game flaw... So devs offered solution where you have tripods that are like personal infantry weapons - so you host those weapons yourself - avoiding all the problems current turrets suffer from.
Tripods are enabling multicrew ships - means you can play with your team now with effect. All contra reasons listed above... are personal preferences and imo we should support devs here considering how much time was invested to come up with a working solution. The only important thing is: If tripods work and we can play the game on multicrew ships - we should at least be decent enough to test it before we start spitting and moaning.
Tripods are enabling multicrew ships - means you can play with your team now with effect. All contra reasons listed above... are personal preferences and imo we should support devs here considering how much time was invested to come up with a working solution. The only important thing is: If tripods work and we can play the game on multicrew ships - we should at least be decent enough to test it before we start spitting and moaning.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 576
I don't think you understand the argument going on here. No one has a problem with adding the tripods. We have a problem with completely tossing the current turrets aesthetically. For style reasons. I can't speak for you, but mounting a rail cannon on top of a dinky tripod mount looks goofy. There are ways to have the curret style of turrets while taking advantage of the tripod tech, or modifying/rebuilding the current turret tech to work more smoothly.
My understanding, as stated earlier, is that there is a huge amount of data crossing these connections, resulting in lag, and ships tearing themselves apart.
So, rather than creating completely new assets, we're saying they could focus on the backend for the programmers, and allow the artists who make the models work on some other things that are still missing. In general. We obviously don't know the inner workings of their methods. No one here is even upset at the devs. They do have to make these sorts of decisions, and alpha is definitely that time in development to do so. We would like them to explore some alternatives they may not have yet tried, rather than scrapping completed assets entirely.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that the vision of the gunships that FrozenByte has is quite in-line with what the current turrets offer (when used as weapons), at least for now. Even if they were working as intended they would be too slow to track light targets. Lauri said earlier that these current gunships are supposed to be pretty small ships overall:
To me, this sounds like bigger working turrets are not a priority until there are suitable targets for them. Gunships with these heavy (though not full caliber), weapons are intended to be fighter deterrents, not battleship destroyers.
It could be that they would like to explore these too, but also have incentives to make the game fun and more playable sooner rather than later. Would it not be better to have viable multi-crew ships now and wait until after EA to get the big guns working well enough?
As an aside, I'm not a fan of how the current turrets look on large ships myself as weapons. They look fine as point defense, but as main weapons, they feel a little exposed and flimsy. I would want big chunky turrets that could take a bit of a beating for main weapons. That's just me, though.
To me, this sounds like bigger working turrets are not a priority until there are suitable targets for them. Gunships with these heavy (though not full caliber), weapons are intended to be fighter deterrents, not battleship destroyers.
It could be that they would like to explore these too, but also have incentives to make the game fun and more playable sooner rather than later. Would it not be better to have viable multi-crew ships now and wait until after EA to get the big guns working well enough?
As an aside, I'm not a fan of how the current turrets look on large ships myself as weapons. They look fine as point defense, but as main weapons, they feel a little exposed and flimsy. I would want big chunky turrets that could take a bit of a beating for main weapons. That's just me, though.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 576
That is all very fair. The thing is, the tripods aren't linkable, and are one person to one gun. How viable are these in a multicrew ship use? The argument that they aren't very viable is fairly strong. However, if we look at gunships in the aircraft sense instead of ship sense, the tripods as detailed work great! But more for infantry carriers and AA defenseish uses and not so much as ship to ship, because fighters are still just too good at what they can do. They sacrifice arc coverage for large alpha and efficient personnel usage. That sacrifice though doesn't seem to actually hamper them.
It seems more like gunships are more troop transport usage cases than a counter or viable alternative to fighters.
