Gunships

[LauriFB]

Fixed ship weapons are going to stay, so standard fighter still can have a lot of guns and just one pilot.

Even experimental turrets drop off the ships sometimes after some flying, or get jammed. We need much more reliable solutions than that. Also they have turning lag and poor hitpoint system.

Edit: I also want the game to have viable multicrew ships. It's not going to happen if we have similarly viable one man gunships against those multicrew ships. So it's both technical issues and the direction of the game.

 

[Waselon]

Tripods would have the same issues then? I still don't understand why you decided to solve the issues for tripods but not for turrets? Is it the size, mass or cradle mechanism itself?

 

[NikofrankoV]

We have exhausted our means to fight the impossible, and there is no more reasonable updates to do with turret cradles without losing some feature from them.

This should be explained in the post, i think most people do not realize why the change is necessary and see this as a purely gameplay decision.

I feel like changing the approach to turrets and swapping their "tech" completely is a better solution. Now, Obviously i do not have your perspective of knowing how hard and man-hour demanding that swap would be, i can only judge from the gameplay standpoint. But to me it is clear that people would much rather have "large tripods" style single-module mouse controlled turrets (somewhat like Tgess mentioned in pictures above) that you actually pilot while sitting in. Even if they are as dumb as Space Engineers turrets, it is still a better solution than no turrets at all.
MOST OF ALL.
As i talked about in my "BIG GUNS" post. Big guns are fun! And even if they are not effective, people want to have fun, so having large-non effective guns, is still better than having only the tri-pods x)

I don't also understand why people somehow see this update to take away their gigantic warhips. There has not been gigantic warhips yet in the game, and this has nothing to do with the possibility of them in the future.

People feel like this is the end of large ships because there is no point for them. A fighter pilot will always be more effective against a ship then a gunner with a single machinegun. With turrets, there was at least an illusion of effectiveness even if you are missing all your shots, you are still firing 4 railcannons on 2 turrets, and that gives you... well... the OOMPH. Which is something tripods lack

 

[NikofrankoV]

Tripods would have the same issues then? I still don't understand why you decided to solve the issues for tripods but not for turrets? Is it the size, mass or cradle mechanism itself?

Same for me, I feel like applying Tripod tech to turrets would solve the problem entirely, but then again, we can not know how hard such a code conversion would be and what problems FB would face.

 

[Viet_Dong]

I like the idea of tripod weapons but I do think there should remain larger turret options because a bunch of mounted guns on a big ship is very underwhelming.

I’m no dev or have any technical knowledge but if there are that many issues with the current turret cradles could they be replaced with something like a larger version of the tripod in order to work better? Custom turrets were promised from the beginning as well as the option to slave turrets to another seat which I was looking forward to using. I think while ships with more players should have an advantage, tripods being the only option for moving turrets takes away the option for smaller crews using clever engineering to be able to take on somewhat larger ones.

Slaving turrets is a really cool idea that I think should remain possible if not viable and taking away the option of moving turrets with anything but another person controlling it is a bit disappointing to me, especially because of the promised ship customization that will now be more limited.

Tripods are cool but should not be the only turret option.

 

[Zaff]

So, there is a fundamental problem with moving stuff with more moving parts: mass, movement of parts, physics and voxels do not like each other. Starbase is also p2p MMO, which adds yet more problems to the mix

Following with some highly speculative ideas not knowing how SB engine works:
Moving mass: Is it possible to make the moving parts of turret massless and instead add all their accumulated mass to the stationary turret base? Similar to how cargo crates work.

Moving parts / physics: Make a simplified or even stationary hitbox for turrets. Allow some potential part clipping by removing collision physics from most/all of the turret. Optionally, on turret creation do a single simulation or circular raycast to check how far from starting point the turret can legally rotate without being blocked. If there's parts in the way, the turret straight up refuses trying to turn further. Basically artifically avoiding collisions, but otherwise noclipping through under exception circumstances. Not optimal, but circumvents the issue.

Voxels: Could be a hybrid, like how you cannot shoot off individual voxels on an endo. Cheat with turrets being made of multiple non-voxel hitboxes for taking damage?

Again, no idea if this is technically feasible, but I'm essentially asking if it has been considered to use any "hacky work-arounds"? Something of an unconvential solution circumventing normal SB physics to ensure ship turrets are feasible. Big turrets seem to be an attractive idea to many players, seeing them also widely used in the trailers.

 

[g.w.a.c.a.]

Building on Zaffs post. Have a turret control device you can link to the turret, similar to an MFC linking to thrusters. Then add a turret control chair that is placed on the ship that can be linked the turret control unit. Lastly, add a cmaera block for turrets. When a endo sits in the chair, the player camera switches to the position of the camera block and the endo controls the turret as if it was the camera.

 

[NikofrankoV]

Building on Zaffs post. Have a turret control device you can link to the turret, similar to an MFC linking to thrusters. Then add a turret control chair that is placed on the ship that can be linked the turret control unit. Lastly, add a cmaera block for turrets. When a endo sits in the chair, the player camera switches to the position of the camera block and the endo controls the turret as if it was the camera.

Cameras are a big no-no.

Tha main problem as far as i understand is with physics/connection not gameplay. Something about turrets needs to change on a fundamental level.

 

[g.w.a.c.a.]

Cameras are a big no-no.

Tha main problem as far as i understand is with physics/connection not gameplay. Something about turrets needs to change on a fundamental level.

My speculation is that they have the same issues as Space Engineers rotors. Both ends have their own physics and as such want to do different things. If they arn't kept together well enough, they break appart. Making the turret a massles object by transphering that mass to the turret base would make the turret follow the lead of the turret base. At that point, placing the player camera (in game visualised by a small device saying "here be camera") shouldn't be much different than a endo standing on a ship.

 

[Mr. Extinct]

Just a quick question from me.
In the Starbase universe, is the tripod gun we’re seeing classified as a hmg or lmg? Because let’s say that it’s an lmg, that’s cool! But will we get a hmg tripod? And let’s say that it’s a hmg? That’s pathetic.

LMG would be the Antigel rifle.
The mounted ones would count as a HMG.
My take on this tho.

 

[CalenLoki]

Biggest (gameplay) problem with current turrets is the clunky control.

Give us device that outputs to yolol view direction of player sitting in a chair, and make player view on ship gyro-stabilised.
That should be enough to make aiming largely lag independent (no input lag and overshooting like currently). Even with all turrets hosted by the main pilot.

It doesn't solve the tech problems, but at least allows hosting the entire ship by one person, and keeping other players seated on static chairs.

Tripods are nice against some tiny targets, but absolutely not competitive against dedicated mid-heavy fighters with multiple weapons.

Also can we place those tripods already in SSC and integrate them into the ship, or only manually?

 

[Dommy]

I don't believe cameras are relevant to the discussion.
Anyway, I think having at least two types of options, a tripod infantry gun and a larger armoured turret, would be the best workaround to the issue with turrets as they are now. I can already think of several ways the tripod infantry gun could be superior (and more fun) to the type of turrets we have now. So due to issues mentioned by Lauri, I generally agree with this direction FB has chosen.
However, implementing a larger option should be considered. Adding a larger option, like mentioned by others, would be a better compromise to just having a small tripod gun.
To further improve this concept, the armour, turret base, amount of guns, etc, could all be customised by choosing between presets/ of these individual parts. This would not lead to modularity (as we see in e.g. FTD, or how turrets are now) but interchangeability like with the type of gun on the tripod, just with more type of parts.

 

[Mimic]

I agree with what most people are saying here.

These premade tripods are smaller and it appears you can only control one at a time. Even if they are as powerful as fixed ship mounted weapons they aren't as exciting as controlling several large turrets from a gimbaled seat. They also do not appear to be unlimitedly customizable as current ship mounted turrets, and customization is a lot of the fun.

I do think that these tripods are a good addition to the game. But rather than replacing ship turrets they would be better suited as smaller easier to set up and use turrets on small and medium sized ships. They could also be good at point defense on larger ships.

As far as making existing turrets work the only problem I have heard from Lauri is turrets have mass. As several people pointed out the mass could be applied to the device base and used to calculate turret rotation speed. Lauri said that this is a hacky solution and I somewhat agree. I too want Starbase to be as realistic as possible. However games use shortcuts like this all the time. Even in engineering we simplify physics models into fewer parts to run simulations.

It would be possible to apply this physics simplification to ship mounted turrets and still have the ship behave realistically. The one caveat is that turret movement would not effect ship flight. In my opinion this is an added bonus because the MFC will not need to account for turrets in order to fly straight.

Another note on Lauri talking about the need for larger multicrew ships. Players do want large multicrew ships, it just seems like these small tripods will not give us a reason to build larger ships because these can be added to existing small ships. Large ships need to be able to do certain things significantly better than small ships. What exactly those things are could be its own topic though.

In summary:
Tripods don't look as exciting, don't promote building large ships, are a good addition to the game.
Players do want large multicrew ships but I don't think tripods help that.

 

[LauriFB]

I have now separated these two issues. We won't commit to a certain change, but the viability of multi-crew gunships is still a goal, as well as technical fidelity of features.

Tripods alone shouldn't be an issue I hope, so let's continue the discussion when we can test them out.

 

[CalenLoki]

Tripods are cool, keep them going! I was really missing some link between ship and infantry combat.

 

[XenoCow]

I'm trying to imagine these tripod turrets in the context of other future weapons (missiles and torpedoes) and other crewed ships. I'm imagining that multi-crew ships become like B-52 Flying fortresses, the mounted guns are for the purpose of deterring fighters, not destroying large targets. In SB, instead of bombs, large ships could have torpedoes to destroy other multi-crew ships or simply be a distraction while the fighters with their superior pin-point damage destroy enemy turreted ships.

I want to wait and see how it feels before making any judgements on the choice. I do know that the old (even dev) turrets, were a nightmare to aim.

 

[Tatakai]

Problems with gun ships; not enough survivability, not enough firepower.

Fixes; mouse aiming for turrets (and ships, for the love of god get this feature in already), and energy shields.

Turret gunners are too exposed, a single spray of AC/LC can disable it, they need protection. If mass/strength is the issue, give ships energy shields.

Before everyone loses their shit; yes, you CAN do balanced shields, that won’t remove design/engineering aspects from the game

 

[Kodey]

B-52 Flying fortresses

This is exactly why I like these tripods, they add variety.

Also, if I’m bringing up variety then I should probably post my suggestions for LMGs, HMGs, and custom mounts.

Different type of tripod mounts/weapons

WEAPONS

The Light Machine Gun

I’ll start to say that I love the fact that the tripod LMG is being designed is portable! However, what I don’t like is that the upcoming tripod LMG is going to be as powerful as ship-mounted weapons. I think that it (the lmg) should be one step above the normal handheld weapons, but two steps below the mounted weapons and one step below a (mostly) ship exclusive turret.

Pros:
- Powerful, stronger than most handheld weapons
- Portable
- Quick set up
Cons:
not as strong as HMG
- Can’t be selected in SSC
- Low ammo
- Takes up more space on a ship
- Can only be mounted to a tripod/gimbal

The Heavy Machine Gun

The heavy machine gun should exist as a more powerful, sort of “older brother” to the LMGs. Much like the current mounted weapons, we could buy them in the SSC and the marketplace, but (like the lmg) the HMG will still have its niche. Being the heavier counterpart, it’ll still be a step below mounted weapons, but it’ll do much more damage than the LMG, have more ammo, and take up less space on a ship, but it’ll be much less portable, probably even taking a full 30 seconds to set up! And, a bigger gun would take up more space in the inventory, meaning someone will have to ditch a lot of supplies to take this powerful weapon

Pros:
- Stronger than the LMGs
- Takes up less space on a ship
- Can be selected in SSC
- Can be mounted on two kinds of mounts
Cons:
- not as strong as fixed weapons
- Long setup
- Takes more space in inventory

MOUNTS

Let’s talk about mounts. In my mind, I see three types of mounts, the tripod, heavy tripod, and gimbal.

The Tripod

We’ve already seen the tripod, it works with the lmg, the height can be adjusted and you can just slap an lmg on it. We know how this works, but what about the *heavy tripod?*

Pros:
- quick to set up
- Height can easily be adjusted
- Quick to take apart
- Doesn’t take up much space in inventory
Cons:
- can’t be attached to a HMG
- takes up second-most space in a ship

The Heavy Tripod

The heavy tripod, the HMG’s own personal tripod, what’s so different? To start it’s just as portable as the light tripod, but you can’t adjust the height easily, and you need to screw on the HMG instead of slapping on the lmg.

Pros:
- Is the only tripod for the HMGs
Cons:
- takes up the most space on ships
- Height can’t be adjusted
- Takes a long time to set up
- Takes up most space in inventory

Gimbal

This is just the gimbal of the tripod, but it has a special attachment that allows it to easily be attached to beams (both in-game and in-editor). It has two versions, one for the HMG and one for the LMG.

Pros:
- takes up the least space in a ship
- Takes up least space in inventory
- Has two versions for the LMG and HMG (magnets Vs. Screws)
- Height can be adjusted via a beam
Cons:
- needs to be attached to a beam

 

[Blargh]

Currently the main concern for players is effective use of manpower. Putting a player on a tripod does not sound like effective use of man power, everyone should have a fighter so why not have them engage with the fighter? At best I could see these being used as Point Defense weapons. Not meant to actually engage ships with.

Even worse, if you put 6-9 players on a gun ship and it gets taken out because large ships lack redundancy currently those players are now without a ship and combat ineffective. Having those same guys in fighters will be much more effective. Large ships are currently only good for logistical reasons right now. If you want players to use large ships this is not the way to do it.

I would make large ships more effective by doing several things.
1. Implement really strong turrets that spread their heat over the structure. Meaning in order to support this turrets you NEED a big ship. Could also add ammo stores that need to have pipes and so on.
2. A more powerful thruster option that requires a special fuel. The fuel in question gets consumed faster than normal so you need to store quite a bit of it. This makes larger ships less slow but allow players to use up the extra space
3. Better wire and cable options. Currently a well placed shot disables a gunship due to wire/cable caps.
4. Spinal weapons, AoE weapons, torpedos etc.

I am sure some of this stuff is planned. But removing custom turrets to replace it with... tripods. Seems like a step in the wrong direction. If tripods are actually really good all that means is we will fit as many of them in as small a space as possible.

 

[ChaosRifle]

I like the idea of multicrew ships getting the buff of having respawning for their whole fleet.