THE space combat solution: radiation based "auto turrets" This thread is obsolete and to be ignored.

[Aha]

How does not having something to aim for you break your immersion?

The contradictory enviroment breaks the immersion, the fact that we have space ships, we ourselves are some high tech AI robots but contrary to that we ridicoulusly have to aim ALL humanly by ourselves. Which is no problem if it isnt ONLY like that. Hence my partial auto turret to spice things up.

- Autoturrets as you suggest them would not change the meta, fighters will still dominate and larger ships would be even harder to use.

In some sense yes you are right (not the "larger ships would be even harder to use" as fighters cant have auto-turrets), as single to single player interactions. However my suggestion aims much more for MASSIVELY multiplayer scenarios where fleets clash.

- Fighters will just attach auto-turrets to their own ships, further stomping down larger ships.

No, no auto-turret for fighters why cant you just understand this? There are many ways to prevent that and not just the big power usage, the device itself can designed to be BIG and heavy. It could even be modular with more depth to it. It itself can emmit huge radiation that renders it auto-turret targetable. It can also be very expensive in materials.

 

[Venombrew]

ya im starting to think Aha is same person as Neva, same exact style of posting, same attitude towards posters and their opinions, not to mention they keep constantly going back to "space combat is primitive" and constantly quoting Neva to enforce their original point as well. you can see it on the posts, even went to that topic to make a post to come back to this topic to again reinforce Neva original statement. if its not the same person, all i've heard from this poster since they joined was an exact copy of Neva statements who has recently dissappeared off the forums. Combat Primitive, its simple and boring, and they again have a solution to make us all happy, just like the prior posts, it not that were being over aggressive, were explaining our side of the pros and cons and they don't want to hear the cons, topics like these are nothing but hatefest back and forth because the OP doesn't want to hear any negative effect of their idea.

go back and read the posts, if this isn't the same person changing accounts to give "support" to their topics would suprise me.

 

[Verbatos]

ya im starting to think Aha is same person as Neva, same exact style of posting, same attitude towards posters and their opinions, not to mention they keep constantly going back to "space combat is primitive" and constantly quoting Neva to enforce their original point as well. you can see it on the posts, even went to that topic to make a post to come back to this topic to again reinforce Neva original statement. if its not the same person, all i've heard from this poster since they joined was an exact copy of Neva statements who has recently dissappeared off the forums. Combat Primitive, its simple and boring, and they again have a solution to make us all happy, just like the prior posts, it not that were being over aggressive, were explaining our side of the pros and cons and they don't want to hear the cons, topics like these are nothing but hatefest back and forth because the OP doesn't want to hear any negative effect of their idea.

go back and read the posts, if this isn't the same person changing accounts to give "support" to their topics would suprise me.

I don't think they are the same person, Aha is using a lot more capitalized words than Neva did, they just have the same ideas and the same poor spelling.

 

[Venombrew]

@Verbatos hey did you see on the roadmap the big yolo updates coming out in q3 and q4? i really hope they expand the line usage and the speed at which yolo reads each line, ive seen quite a few yolo guys claiming with those kind of changes they can implement database information and execute commands to store information on CVs. Im thinking bounty hunter and wanted lists, i just hope they can transfer said data to other stations and outpost. that little feature be pretty pimp since transponders carry our information on them as well.

 

[Aha]

ya im starting to think Aha is same person as Neva, same exact style of posting, same attitude towards posters and their opinions, not to mention they keep constantly going back to "space combat is primitive" and constantly quoting Neva to enforce their original point as well. you can see it on the posts, even went to that topic to make a post to come back to this topic to again reinforce Neva original statement. if its not the same person, all i've heard from this poster since they joined was an exact copy of Neva statements who has recently dissappeared off the forums. Combat Primitive, its simple and boring, and they again have a solution to make us all happy, just like the prior posts, it not that were being over aggressive, were explaining our side of the pros and cons and they don't want to hear the cons, topics like these are nothing but hatefest back and forth because the OP doesn't want to hear any negative effect of their idea.

go back and read the posts, if this isn't the same person changing accounts to give "support" to their topics would suprise me.

I simply started ignoring you exactly because you are everything you tried to project on me. I do like a good argument, you were unable to present any argument you straight talked like you never even read my suggestion other than "auto turret". The other commenters arent like you, you are toxic. Im looking for intelligent conversations and your capability ends here:

no i read your post just fine, no need to go back

Lets agree to disagree, god bless you!

 

[Verbatos]

@Verbatos hey did you see on the roadmap the big yolo updates coming out in q3 and q4? i really hope they expand the line usage and the speed at which yolo reads each line, ive seen quite a few yolo guys claiming with those kind of changes they can implement database information and execute commands to store information on CVs. Im thinking bounty hunter and wanted lists, i just hope they can transfer said data to other stations and outpost. that little feature be pretty pimp since transponders carry our information on them as well.

I kinda skimmed over those points lmao. I'm not really a YOLOL person so I don't know exactly what faster line reading could benefit. But I can see more lines, which are read faster being very useful for the people who know how to use YOLOL, so I'm excited on their behalf.

 

[Venombrew]

I simply started ignoring you exactly because you are everything you tried to project on me. I do like a good argument, you were unable to present any argument you straight talked like you never even read my suggestion other than "auto turret". The other commenters arent like you, you are toxic. Im looking for intelligent conversations and your capability ends here:

okay, tell me where have you seen other ships in sci-fi tvs, movies, and games that actually utlilize auto-turrets on their ships? I tell you what i give you my list, then you give me your list where you've seen this.

Never seen the mellinium falcon ever use AT, have you? Deathstar? Dreadnaughts? X-Wings? Tie Fighters maybe? Enterprise from Startrek don't do it, the Orville dont do it, No ship ever on Firefly or the movie Serenity ever did it, not a single ship in Galaxy Quest, Starcraft's ship did not have that capabilities, heatseekers and guide yes, the only thing they aad were ground auto-turrets to defend from aerial attack, but thats not an AT on a ship. None of Planetside 2 ships have this capability, no ships in the alien or predator franchise had these capabilities, Halo doesn't, mass effect doesn't, warframe doesn't, neither does any of the Star War games or Star trek games, and trust me the list goes on, but your only reference was,

Understandably auto turrets like in space engineers for example is a bad idea considering how the game is designed to be. It is lazy.

where you yourself said its a bad idea, so your plan is to what? build off an already bad idea? ive given you tons of reasons for negative effect from this, that is all. you don't want to hear this, you want to hear,

I truly believe i just have the perfect solution to make everyone happy, EVERYONE!

you keep telling me "i don't get it, i don't understand it, but i read it just find and the understanding of autoturrets, a non manned machine is not a hard concept to wrap your mind around it. very easy, was it autoturrets? a turret no manned by a person. your idea is not as eloborate as you think sir.

I kinda skimmed over those points lmao. I'm not really a YOLOL person so I don't know exactly what faster line reading could benefit. But I can see more lines, which are read faster being very useful for the people who know how to use YOLOL, so I'm excited on their behalf.

ok so the way it works, the game only reads each line of code so fast, i can't remember off top of my head the speed, but its really slow, so that slows down the time of response, including making more complicated code actions difficult to deliver on. the extra lines for more information will shrinking the amount of chips needed to store information. so right now we need quicker read times per line when executing and more ability to store lines of code. Ya im not Yolo guy either really lol, i just wanted to learn the capabilities so i get an idea of what is possible and what isn't, at least right now. I got grocery list of pirate and thieves tools i want someone to make for me, but im have to wait til q3 when the updates hit.

 

[Aha]

okay, tell me where have you seen other ships in sci-fi tvs, movies, and games that actually utlilize auto-turrets on their ships? I tell you what i give you my list, then you give me your list where you've seen this.

Never seen the mellinium falcon ever use AT, have you? Deathstar? Dreadnaughts? X-Wings? Tie Fighters maybe? Enterprise from Startrek don't do it, the Orville dont do it, No ship ever on Firefly or the movie Serenity ever did it, not a single ship in Galaxy Quest, Starcraft's ship did not have that capabilities, heatseekers and guide yes, the only thing they aad were ground auto-turrets to defend from aerial attack, but thats not an AT on a ship. None of Planetside 2 ships have this capability, no ships in the alien or predator franchise had these capabilities, Halo doesn't, mass effect doesn't, warframe doesn't, neither does any of the Star War games or Star trek games, and trust me the list goes on, but your only reference was,


where you yourself said its a bad idea, so your plan is to what? build off an already bad idea? ive given you tons of reasons for negative effect from this, that is all. you don't want to hear this, you want to hear,


you keep telling me "i don't get it, i don't understand it, but i read it just find and the understanding of autoturrets, a non manned machine is not a hard concept to wrap your mind around it. very easy, was it autoturrets? a turret no manned by a person. your idea is not as eloborate as you think sir.

ok so the way it works, the game only reads each line of code so fast, i can't remember off top of my head the speed, but its really slow, so that slows down the time of response, including making more complicated code actions difficult to deliver on. the extra lines for more information will shrinken the amount of chips needed to store information. so right now we need quicker read times per line when executing and more ability to store lines of code.

So Starbase isnt a game but a movie shooting? Sure i didnt know that.
Since you never understood a thing about my suggestion it is obvious that you stuck at the space engineers auto turret. My suggestion is completely different.

but i read it just find and the understanding of autoturrets

Yea, exactly... thank you!
To put an end to your suffering, i will point everything out tomorrow how everything went over your head since:

but i read it just find and the understanding of autoturrets

Good night for now.

 

[Venombrew]

what you dont understand, is frozenbyte isn't going to limit this one style of gun to only certain style of ships. first of all, frozenbyte doesn't actual call the deciding factors on what truly makes a large ship a fighter or a shuttle. thats why small ships that can only be manned by 1 person, can have a freaking rail gun on it, which is typically only used on large ships. you can take the biggest thruster in the game, which is bigger than a dump truck and build a ship around that one thruster. so when you say things like this,

No, no auto-turret for fighters why cant you just understand this?

is quite irrelevant since FB won't inhibit ship designs. if you can make it work, make it work. So whats stopping players from putting these ship destroying AT's on the fastest, smallest, hardest ship to hit, and doing nothing buy fly bys on their targets, regardless of their size? how is it fair, to let one solo player have the capabilities of taking out small fleets? and you could argue, "well the big ships got AT too", how does that help when the super fast smaller ship can fly right under the belly deliver multiple shots from AT off the back of his ship and be out of danger before their ship can even connect a shot? btw this right now happens in alpha, one can outmanuver volley of shots, if they are that good of a pilot.

This is a Con, "Consequence of the choice", i have given you many cons and waited for you to respond to them, if i am wrong, tell me, show me, don't just say, "i dont get it". doesnt matter the radiation trail, or what fuel it will recognize, a hit is a hit regardless. a repeated hit non returned is a guaranteed lost, this is what almost everyone of us on this topic tried to explain to you, im not saying anything these other people haven't already said. so can you give me at least one reason to why my above con is wrong, without just telling me "i don't get it". if you want to know the truth, i dont think AT is a bad idea, just on ships, i actually believe AT used on stations to help defend ship attacks would be a great thing. Attacker would have to deploy some form of ground troops to take it out so their fleet could get close. Gives strategy, skill, and teamwork, something ATs on ships don't demonstrate any of.

 

[mrchip]

The idea, for how i understand it, is that fighter will never want auto targeting, since that emits radiation and would make them trackable, which is a deadly threat for a fighter.
However... the only reason it doesn't matter on a big ship, is that the big ship is going to get hit regardless of turrets or not. Which means turrets are unnecessary.
Also, if you can just switch it off, then every fighter will have it, and will turn it off if the opponent has auto turrets to threaten them. If not, enjoy easy aim. The fact that it needs more power isnt that relevant: people will generate as much power as they need, and generators can be throttled / shut down to reduce rad signature when you dont need them.

So yeah. Questionable

Also, i need to mention that i mostly disagree with the "space combat is primitive" thing: yes, it IS primitive, but that's fine.
Advances in technology means less work for the user (pilot, gunner, or a dedicated weapons controller).
Less work for the user literally means the game becomes simpler, and more of it is played by a YOLOL chip.

IRL, you develop every system you can to do that. Why? Because the goal is to achieve something and increase your survivability.
In a game, the builders will do that, but the game's designers should place limits. Because the goal is to play a fun game, so you must prevent the players from automating the whole game.
You play the game to enjoy the things you do in the game. If those things can be automated, players will do that to gain an advantage. If players do that, they are literally taking chunks of the game, and throwing them out of the window.
This doesnt mean "ooga booga reject yolol", many things are completely fine (or good) to automate (who's going to bother manually setting generator power). But replacing half of the equation in what is supposed to be a mechanical skill, high intensity activity, aka combat, no thank you.

 

[XenoCow]

I'd like to play Aha's advocate for a moment. I'm trying to think about how I would want auto-turrets to be implemented if I were to want them in the game...

I think I would want a device that acts like a laser range finder that can calculate the relative velocity vector of the object in it's beam. With such a device, you can essentially replace, very crudely, the role of a turret gunner. The velocity finder would either have to look around or be directed via a rangefinder turret (could be done by the captain in a turret chair or external turret) to mark targets. Then YOLOL could be used to keep the velocity finder pointed at the target since the velocity is now known and slaved turrets could all then fire once they have turned to face the lead on the target.

Only large, slow targets would be susceptible to this as anything small would easily lose the tracking beam. Also, player input could be used to select targets via the rangefinder. Multiple targets could be selected via a switch when marking them. Additionally, the velocity finder device could be used to create lock-on torpedoes.

I feel like this is limited enough (only slow large ships at risk) and falls in-line with the rest of the universe (programmed scanning or manual marking). It's perhaps not exactly what you want, but it's close enough that I think I could live with it.

 

[Aha]

you dont read:

There are many ways to prevent that and not just the big power usage, the device itself can designed to be BIG and heavy. It could even be modular with more depth to it. It itself can emmit huge radiation that renders it auto-turret targetable. It can also be very expensive in materials.

so you blunder:

So whats stopping players from putting these ship destroying AT's on the fastest, smallest, hardest ship to hit, and doing nothing buy fly bys on their targets, regardless of their size?

If the device itself is as big and as heavy or even heavier as a whole fighter itself then fighters naturaly wont have them. Its that easy but im sure i could come up with other ways too.

where you yourself said its a bad idea, so your plan is to what? build off an already bad idea? ive given you tons of reasons for negative effect from this, that is all. you don't want to hear this, you want to hear,

You given tons of reasons for negative effect of simple auto turrets like they are in space engineers for example, but not actually to my version. My problem with you is exactly what you are tryin to project on me. It is you who doesnt want to accept any counter arguments, you didnt even take the effort to try and properly picture my idea as a whole. You didnt even take the effort to make sense of what follows the sentence "No, no auto-turret for fighters why cant you just understand this? " And you write this "So whats stopping players from putting these ship destroying AT's on the fastest, smallest, hardest ship to hit, and doing nothing buy fly bys on their targets, regardless of their size?"
This is ridiculous, truly is. You selectively process information and then vomit out nonsense, then if you are ignored because of your toxic behaviour you start vomiting venom and give birth to pure garbage like this:

ya im starting to think Aha is same person as Neva, same exact style of posting, same attitude towards posters and their opinions, not to mention they keep constantly going back to "space combat is primitive" and constantly quoting Neva to enforce their original point as well. you can see it on the posts, even went to that topic to make a post to come back to this topic to again reinforce Neva original statement. if its not the same person, all i've heard from this poster since they joined was an exact copy of Neva statements who has recently dissappeared off the forums. Combat Primitive, its simple and boring, and they again have a solution to make us all happy, just like the prior posts, it not that were being over aggressive, were explaining our side of the pros and cons and they don't want to hear the cons, topics like these are nothing but hatefest back and forth because the OP doesn't want to hear any negative effect of their idea.

go back and read the posts, if this isn't the same person changing accounts to give "support" to their topics would suprise me.

Wonder why you experience "hatefest"? I tell you the secret, because you are the source.
If you want to argue, make the effort of actually trying to understand what the suggestion really is and dont just hear "auto turret" and close everything out. I did address the arguments of other people, and i would have addressed you too were you not so disrespectful.

no i read your post just fine, no need to go back

Even if you did read the post just fine, it is beneficial both for you and me that you read it again, even if you werent be this ignorant (and this is not an insult, you literaly are, you ignore a lot of stuff), it is still good to learn it better so you could even argue better. I really just want to end this.
I apologise for upsetting you by ignoring you. I can just hope that you come to understanding my position. I wish you good!

 

[Aha]

The idea, for how i understand it, is that fighter will never want auto targeting, since that emits radiation and would make them trackable, which is a deadly threat for a fighter.

That is correct, and also because:

There are many ways to prevent that and not just the big power usage, the device itself can designed to be BIG and heavy. It could even be modular with more depth to it. It itself can emmit huge radiation that renders it auto-turret targetable. It can also be very expensive in materials.

However... the only reason it doesn't matter on a big ship, is that the big ship is going to get hit regardless of turrets or not. Which means turrets are unnecessary.

Oh well it isnt a shield, it's job is to give a hard time to overpowered fighters as well, with railguns and such, as:

-It could be that firing guns would generate a radiation spike enough to be picked up by the detector (if you are just close enough for that) to make things even spicier.

People will find a way to make small ships with autoturrets

Please dont be Venombrew. This again:

There are many ways to prevent that and not just the big power usage, the device itself can designed to be BIG and heavy. It could even be modular with more depth to it. It itself can emmit huge radiation that renders it auto-turret targetable. It can also be very expensive in materials.

Plus this:

If the device itself is as big and as heavy or even heavier as a whole fighter itself then fighters naturaly wont have them period. Its that easy but im sure i could come up with other ways too.

Also, i need to mention that i mostly disagree with the "space combat is primitive" thing: yes, it IS primitive, but that's fine.

Yes it is fine, if the game wouldnt be this big scale. Im absolutely happy with it, i would enjoy it.
However id like to ask you to think about large scale battles, wouldnt it be nice to see different class of ships doing different roles? When 2 big fleets of 2 factions clash? I mean, with my suggestion how i mean it to be, the fighters ar still there doing dogfights and harrashing the big ships. Advanced fighters are hunting those fighters, dog fight is still there. They are hunted with medium sized vessels, those already have auto-turrets, those being focused by the biggest battleships those being focused by the light fighters and we have nice circle.
Crew is still necessary for reloading, for more eyes to see, to protect the large ship from boarding troops to man manual turrets agains fighters and troop transports those have close to no radiation and easily approach the large juicy ship of a target. If you are all alone in a big expensive ship with the auto turrets, one small fighter can bring to board 2 players, whose easily disable you by hunting you down in the ship. Crew is still essential, my suggestion doesnt replace crew.

Your concerns are valid, and helps me to better present my vision.
I really need a whole new presentation, im already working on it in my head.

 

[Aha]

I'd like to play Aha's advocate for a moment. I'm trying to think about how I would want auto-turrets to be implemented if I were to want them in the game...

I think I would want a device that acts like a laser range finder that can calculate the relative velocity vector of the object in it's beam. With such a device, you can essentially replace, very crudely, the role of a turret gunner. The velocity finder would either have to look around or be directed via a rangefinder turret (could be done by the captain in a turret chair or external turret) to mark targets. Then YOLOL could be used to keep the velocity finder pointed at the target since the velocity is now known and slaved turrets could all then fire once they have turned to face the lead on the target.

Only large, slow targets would be susceptible to this as anything small would easily lose the tracking beam. Also, player input could be used to select targets via the rangefinder. Multiple targets could be selected via a switch when marking them. Additionally, the velocity finder device could be used to create lock-on torpedoes.

I feel like this is limited enough (only slow large ships at risk) and falls in-line with the rest of the universe (programmed scanning or manual marking). It's perhaps not exactly what you want, but it's close enough that I think I could live with it.

What i envisioned is almost exactly the same. Since my post i also came up with the idea that the target would be the "bubble" that is the literal radiation engulfing the target. That means a great deal of inaccuracy. The device itself could be modular, you could make it that the range is higher (targets are more easy to pick up) but means loss of inacurracy. Or the other way around, you retract your effective range a lot in favor of accuracy. Its all intuitive too. Force lock on weaker signal, weak accuracy. Let it lock on strong signal, strong accuracy. Please read my answer to mrchip as well.

 

[Waa7g8]

No

 

[Lionard Freezer]

@Aha
Now im pretty sure that you contradicted yourself a bit but... Lets start at some point, and that point will be yolol.
Yolol is a language that can be used to make anything do most things. You use it to get the output of sensors, give turntables and the mounted guns their inputs, calculates trajectorys or even open doors.
Now... you use a sensor to detect radiation of your enemys and use that output for the autoturrets aim right? so... you could use that output of the sensor for any kind of turret (maybe with a bit of yolol tweaking) to create a basic autoturret. It might be a bit slower than the thing it was supposed to be used for but we use autoturrets not against fighters so we dont need them to be that accurate.
Now thanks to the ability to make any gun, no matter how big or small, an aututurret we have fighters that can destroy big ships.
But we already have fighters that can destroy big ships. And becourse of that fighters are Meta. And becourse fighters are meta noone uses big ships. And becourse noone uses big ships we dont need autoturrets that target big ships.
Again autoturrets dont do anything against the fighter meta.
If a fighter can destroy a bigger ship, even if that bigger ship has autoturrets... then who tf is a big enough idiot to use anthing other than fighters?
So i ask again: Who are you trying to help? Becourse all autoturrets would do with the way you described them is that bigger ships will be even more vulnerable, which doesnt help anyone.

 

[Venombrew]

@Lionard Freezer this topic and poster doesn't want to hear anything other than,

I truly believe i just have the perfect solution to make everyone happy, EVERYONE!

@Lionard Freezer what do you think about auto-turret defense for stations? the idea of putting it on ships is utterly stupid and the only use for it is so a solo player can feel elite by not having to do anything skill wise, you know just fly around and let the autoturrets do all your work for you. but with station turrets, it could give a bit more on the side of sieges. Gives more defenses and and objectives for attackers. they would have to find a way to deploy ground troops to take it out first before ships could get closer, forcing both the ground and ship combat. players would have to use skill, teamwork, and form a strategy to break through this type of defense. The only draw back would be if attackers could utilize far out ranges wit rail guns. Think of planetside 2 objectives in a way. what your thoughts on it?

 

[kiiyo]

Jumping in because this is too funny to just watch from the sidelines. Looking at the game so far, as a long-time tester and a first-hand witness of the great Cheeseball Massacre, here's what I think would happen if radiation-based autoturrets were implemented into the game, from the POV of an average SSC inhabitant:

1. Big ships, of course, install them ASAP.
2. Turns out putting more of them requires a lot more power.
3. That means a lot more generator.
4. More radiation.
5. Put plates and rad shielding so that we aren't as vulnerable to those pesky little fighters with these silly auto turrets.
6. Now we're slow.
7. Expand thruster wall.
8. We eat too much propellant and power.
9. Expand power and propellant.
10. Produce too much radiation.
11. More plate and radshield.
12. Too little thrust.
13. Grab plush bear.
14. Cry in bed.

This'll happen because people will put autoturrets onto fighters. That'll happen with everything. I'm currently assembling a ship that goes 159 m/s as its top speed and carries a grand total of 28 plasma cannons on it. Big ship armament size, basically. People will put the most ridiculous shit on fighters, including these autoturrets. You say they'll draw a lot of power- then ships will go two directions: small fighter with 0 plating but stupid amounts of firepower, or medium fighter with stupid amounts of armor and barely less ridiculous amounts of firepower. I mean, look at VIR's fighters. Bonkers.

 

[Aha]

5. Put plates and rad shielding so that we aren't as vulnerable to those pesky little fighters with these silly auto turrets.

This'll happen because people will put autoturrets onto fighters.

I am sorry your whole argument is invalid because you too ignored the fact that autoturrets will not fit on fighters. It must be designed that way no matter what. Sigh...

There are many ways to prevent that and not just the big power usage, the device itself can designed to be BIG and heavy. It could even be modular with more depth to it. It itself can emmit huge radiation that renders it auto-turret targetable. It can also be very expensive in materials.

If the device itself is as big and as heavy or even heavier as a whole fighter itself then fighters naturaly wont have them. Its that easy but im sure i could come up with other ways too.

then ships will go two directions: small fighter with 0 plating but stupid amounts of firepower, or medium fighter with stupid amounts of armor and barely less ridiculous amounts of firepower.

Right, still, stupid ammount of firepower again results in too much radiation -> auto turret target.

or medium fighter with stupid amounts of armor and barely less ridiculous amounts of firepower.

Or reasonable ammount of armor good manouveribility and reasonable ammounts of firepower to prevent auto turrets targeting you as much as possible.

The rest of your points are valid, it is up to the players to find the best balance between the properties.

Please if you base your argument on something that is againts my actuall suggestion, you cant expect to prove anything. I am sorry...

 

[Aha]

@Aha
Now im pretty sure that you contradicted yourself a bit but... Lets start at some point, and that point will be yolol.
Yolol is a language that can be used to make anything do most things. You use it to get the output of sensors, give turntables and the mounted guns their inputs, calculates trajectorys or even open doors.
Now... you use a sensor to detect radiation of your enemys and use that output for the autoturrets aim right? so... you could use that output of the sensor for any kind of turret (maybe with a bit of yolol tweaking) to create a basic autoturret. It might be a bit slower than the thing it was supposed to be used for but we use autoturrets not against fighters so we dont need them to be that accurate.
Now thanks to the ability to make any gun, no matter how big or small, an aututurret we have fighters that can destroy big ships.
But we already have fighters that can destroy big ships. And becourse of that fighters are Meta. And becourse fighters are meta noone uses big ships. And becourse noone uses big ships we dont need autoturrets that target big ships.
Again autoturrets dont do anything against the fighter meta.
If a fighter can destroy a bigger ship, even if that bigger ship has autoturrets... then who tf is a big enough idiot to use anthing other than fighters?
So i ask again: Who are you trying to help? Becourse all autoturrets would do with the way you described them is that bigger ships will be even more vulnerable, which doesnt help anyone.

Okay, you making it black and white, and it is far from that. Fighters will be targeted by the auto turrets, its all depends on how close can they come before their radiation is big enough to be locked on to. Here is a "very professional" drawing im preparing for my new presentation.

All of these are fighters apart from the blue ship of course. The numbers in the fighters mean their radiation level. The numbers in the circles show what radiation level the enemy has to have to be able to be targeted at that range. (simplified for the demonstration purpose) As you can see the more basic thus less radiation emmiting you are the closer you can get to the auto turret without being targeted by it.
Its not like auto-turrets will target big ships and not fighters. Its very dynamic!
Does this answer your question?