THE space combat solution: radiation based "auto turrets" This thread is obsolete and to be ignored.

[XenoCow]

Because this isnt real life where you as a marine live your life day and night anytime ready to get to your battle stations therefor it is too difficult to get proper crew.

Remember, no player base -> no crew to fill up ships (especially as people mostly want to pilot their own ships)

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.

I am very confused now. It sounds like you want auto-turrets in principal because you cannot get crew members for your large ships, yet you say that auto-turrets do not replace crew. If crew is still required, then I would think that the manual turret gunners that you say are needed for fighters could also fight off larger, more radioactive, threats.

Because i would like to see a diverse space combat mechanic.

I can understand how this would be a good reason to want auto-turrets, although I wouldn't exactly agree.

I think that there is still a disconnect, I don't think that auto-turrets are necessary or would make the game more fun for me. I would rather pilot a fighter that I have full control over all the guns or be a gunner or engineering crew for a larger ship. I would feel like I was cheating or just being lazy if my guns aim for me. In most games, I avoid lock-on or automatic weapons of any sort if there is a direct-fire or manual option because I find it more fun to know that when I destroyed something it was because of my good aim.

I am curious to see how many players actually want to pilot their own ships versus being crew. I'll set up a poll to see if we can get any reasonable data on that. Here is part 1 of the poll.

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.

Currently engagement distances hover around the 50% of weapon range. There are then very brief passes at closer ranges and other times ships are out of weapons range or just on the edge. With this in mind, only the second most radioactive ships will be vulnerable to your auto-turrets. It seems like it would be easy enough to just sit outside the range and destroy the large ship, even if it took a long time while limiting damage output to stay out of detection.

On a personal note, I think that weapon ranges should be increased to visible range. That's neither here nor there.

 

[Aha]

I am very confused now. It sounds like you want auto-turrets in principal because you cannot get crew members for your large ships, yet you say that auto-turrets do not replace crew. If crew is still required, then I would think that the manual turret gunners that you say are needed for fighters could also fight off larger, more radioactive, threats.

Your confusion is understandable. Let me try to explain myself. I designed this feature to be very fluid. It sure helps replacing a crew member, but not 100%. Its the gap filled in having a crew member and not having one. Makes the whole thing more dynamic.

I think that there is still a disconnect, I don't think that auto-turrets are necessary or would make the game more fun for me.

I understand that, and that is the reason i designed it to be less and less effective againts smaller and smaller targets, so people who enjoy being superior pilots in fighers and succeed due to their piloting skills still be able to do so. Same with gunners. My design aims to make ships more balanced and punish those who spam 999 guns and 999 thrusters on a ship and call it a day. If you think about it, from this perspective i believe my auto turrets actually help you have more fun in the way you like it!

I am curious to see how many players actually want to pilot their own ships versus being crew. I'll set up a poll to see if we can get any reasonable data on that.

That is an excellent idea!

(...) It seems like it would be easy enough to just sit outside the range and destroy the large ship, even if it took a long time while limiting damage output to stay out of detection.

Finaly, my idea being properly understood.
Yes, that IS the idea, however also picture into the equation the medium sized corvette that will be able to pursue you and doesnt need to outmanouver you because has auto-turret. And as ships grow larger from a corvette become more powerful againts directly smaller ships and also less and less poweful againts fighters. All that creates a smooth, diverse, rock paper sciccor circle. There is no hard meta.

On a personal note, I think that weapon ranges should be increased to visible range. That's neither here nor there.

That is a good point, and my design to work nicely the ranges totaly need to be extended. 2-3 km would be nice i think.

 

[XenoCow]

Its the gap filled in having a crew member and not having one.

I'm not convinced that there is a gap between having a player and not having one. If there is, why is it necessary to be filled?

Yes, that IS the idea, however also picture into the equation the medium sized corvette that will be able to pursue you and doesnt need to outmanouver you because has auto-turret. And as ships grow larger from a corvette become more powerful againts directly smaller ships and also less and less poweful againts fighters. All that creates a smooth, diverse, rock paper sciccor circle. There is no hard meta.

I'm not sure I understand the situation you're describing. What kind of ship is "you" in this case compared to the medium sized corvette?

 

[Aha]

I'm not convinced that there is a gap between having a player and not having one.

Come on, having more people especially at the most common scenario of being 2v1 between the 1 and 2 there is no gap?

If there is, why is it necessary to be filled?

Because having an extra player is a huge advantage, so why not smooth that out a bit with engineering solutions, not swap, just smooth by filling the gap. The game attempts to be a lot about engineering, it should be so!

I'm not sure I understand the situation you're describing. What kind of ship is "you" in this case compared to the medium sized corvette?

Right, my bad. "You" are the very advanced fighter that can deal a lot of damage (the meta now)

 

[XenoCow]

I still thank that the 1 in any 2 v1, regardless of ship size or multicrew, should lose the vast majority of the time. As long as the 2 have even moderate ship(s) they should be at an advantage. So, unless the 2 have garbage ships or are terrible pilots / gunners, I think it is fair that they win. Gathering other players is part of the core gameplay of Starbase and crucial to combat. Do you think that the single player should have a good chance against more than one player?

"You" are the very advanced fighter that can deal a lot of damage (the meta now)

I think that in that case the medium corvette would be smaller than the fighter. The largest fighters now, that can travel at max speed and are maneuverable, max out the ship build limits pretty much.

Although I am not a fan of huge fighters as they are now, I don't see how it would be advantageous to use these auto-turrets in a smaller ship that is less maneuverable than its target.

 

[Aha]

I still thank that the 1 in any 2 v1, regardless of ship size or multicrew, should lose the vast majority of the time. As long as the 2 have even moderate ship(s) they should be at an advantage. So, unless the 2 have garbage ships or are terrible pilots / gunners, I think it is fair that they win. Gathering other players is part of the core gameplay of Starbase and crucial to combat. Do you think that the single player should have a good chance against more than one player?

Yes you are right. Hence -once again- i designed the whole thing not to replace a player.
But a good, expensive (as the device would be very expensive) ship should have better chances because of technology. The game shouldnt lean solely on player crews. Yes i understand it is part of the core gameplay, and as i expressed earlier too, i kept that in mind. However, it shouldnt be the ONLY gameplay. Engineering is also a core gameplay of Starbase! (if it wasnt i wouldnt even care at all, i wouldnt even care about the game at all)

I think that in that case the medium corvette would be smaller than the fighter. The largest fighters now, that can travel at max speed and are maneuverable, max out the ship build limits pretty much.

Hmmm... Is this ship a fake fantasy then?

Although I am not a fan of huge fighters as they are now, I don't see how it would be advantageous to use these auto-turrets in a smaller ship that is less maneuverable than its target.

Yea, no that is not my vision at all. Obviously meant to be for larger ship.

 

[Xandorian]

Just checking if I'm understanding this correctly, the auto-turrets are there to make large ships more viable, implement stealth beyond painting it black and introduce a rock paper scissors style ship class system.

• The auto-turrets would be forcefully limited to larger ships either by size or radiation constraints (can't stealth with auto-turrets)
• Large ships with many auto-turrets would be firing at other large ships and medium ships
• Medium ships would stay close to their large ship and use a few auto-turrets and hunt down fighters
• Fighters/small ships would not be capable of effectively having an auto-turret but can close in and fire more accurately against large ships and still dogfight with other fighters
• The smallest/most basic ships can be almost undetectable by auto-turrets and could board large ships but the manually aimed turrets and fighters would intercept and destroy
• Single players would still not be able to take on a fleet solo as crew and supporting ships are needed to take out smaller fighters/boarding craft (unless the fleet was wildly incompetent and the solo player was an ace)

 

[Aha]

Just checking if I'm understanding this correctly, the auto-turrets are there to make large ships more viable, implement stealth beyond painting it black and introduce a rock paper scissors style ship class system.

• The auto-turrets would be forcefully limited to larger ships either by size or radiation constraints (can't stealth with auto-turrets)
• Large ships with many auto-turrets would be firing at other large ships and medium ships
• Medium ships would stay close to their large ship and use a few auto-turrets and hunt down fighters
• Fighters/small ships would not be capable of effectively having an auto-turret but can close in and fire more accurately against large ships and still dogfight with other fighters
• The smallest/most basic ships can be almost undetectable by auto-turrets and could board large ships but the manually aimed turrets and fighters would intercept and destroy
• Single players would still not be able to take on a fleet solo as crew and supporting ships are needed to take out smaller fighters/boarding craft (unless the fleet was wildly incompetent and the solo player was an ace)

Exactly right!
Summed up so beautifuly that i take a picture of your comment and edit it into the main post, i hope you dont mind. Just tell me if you do, and i delete it.

 

[mrchip]

bruuuuuuuhh

 

[Christopher420]

So at first:
In my opinion some people here arent't capeable to argue rational.

Second:
Im not a native english speaker so please excuse my grammar.

Okay then:
I have to say its a reasonable idea which, of course, needs a lot of testing n' stuff. BUT I like the idea of creating some kind of Rock-Paper-Scissors situation.


And btw: Try to imagine and think about the suggestions people make.
For example: Dont read just ,,auto-turret'' and start complaining. Try to really understand what the idea is of that person sharing their ideas.

I mean Aha really seems to think about the stuff he is saying. And to be fair you should too if you want to argue. At least try to understand properly.

 

[Cavilier210]

Okay then:
I have to say its a reasonable idea which, of course, needs a lot of testing n' stuff. BUT I like the idea of creating some kind of Rock-Paper-Scissors situation.


And btw: Try to imagine and think about the suggestions people make.
For example: Dont read just ,,auto-turret'' and start complaining. Try to really understand what the idea is of that person sharing their ideas.

I mean Aha really seems to think about the stuff he is saying. And to be fair you should too if you want to argue. At least try to understand properly.

The devs have literally said "no auto turrets". The OP admits he didn't explain himself properly. Even when someone else explained it properly, its not really a helpful mechanic still.

Rock paper scissors is boring honestly. Large ships need to be made viable. This is probably not the way to do it. If it is the way to do it, its too simplistic to implement for the player.

It's also an MMO. Sorry to say, but solo players should not be able to compete with squads of fighters. A multi crewed ship? For sure. One guy in a monster ship a la Space Engineers? No. A million no's.

 

[mrchip]

And btw: Try to think about the counterarguments people make.
For example: Don't just read "no auto turrets" and assume people are reacting just to that alone. Try to really understand the points being made by the person sharing counterarguments.

I'm just sharing my opinions to see if there's something i'm missing, that makes the general concept of this suggestion good.

 

[Aha]

And btw: Try to think about the counterarguments people make.
For example: Don't just read "no auto turrets" and assume people are reacting just to that alone. Try to really understand the points being made by the person sharing counterarguments.

I'm just sharing my opinions to see if there's something i'm missing, that makes the general concept of this suggestion good.

I am almost done with the second edition, i am excited to show you!
Truth is, you guys just didnt get the picture, almost not at all. That is mostly my fault.
However, what Christopher420 said is very true as well! When you saw the title, your thoughts were already something like this: "another stupid auto turret..."
This set of mind closes your perception by a great measure, much much much greater than you might realize or your ego would admit. This is simply how the humans are. I am no better than you, i find myself many times to be like that, and 90% of the times i realize it afterwards only. It is easy for me to call you out on this since i am the one defending my concept with the full picture of what it really is.

Sorry to say, but solo players should not be able to compete with squads of fighters.

I promise you, my concept is NOTHING like that.

One guy in a monster ship a la Space Engineers?

Nothing like that! Nothing!

No. A million no's.

You are saying a million no's to something that isnt my suggestion, and no matter how many facts and reasons i will provide if you dont change your state of mind, you will not get a thing.

That is just how the psyche works. Once your emotions, prejudices and ego dictate your reasoning, you are capable of close to zero rationality, that is because, your intelligence is locked up behind the bars of emotions, prejudices and ego. We are all like that more or less, even the wisest people fail.

Let me point at XenoCow. Perfect example. He came here with an open mind more or less. Then he even said:

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...

This kind of state of mind allowed his intelligence to come forward and it actually resulted in me saying to him:

Finaly, my idea being properly understood.

Here is an experiment proposal. Force yourself into the state of mind that is supporting my idea, this is the most important, really change your mindset! Then re-read all the comments here and see if you find yourself realizing things that you might have totaly overlooked or how foolish you possibly were. I found myself foolish several times as i re-read the commens. I dont expect you to admit anything, really not, its just a mind experiment for yourself.



I will post the second edition soon. I am doing my part.
Im not asking to like it, i merely ask to give it a chance!
I even believe in you Venombrew, know that i have no hard feelings.

 

[Cavilier210]

When you saw the title, your thoughts were already something like this: "another stupid auto turret..."
This set of mind closes your perception by a great measure, much much much greater than you might realize or your ego would admit. This is simply how the humans are. I am no better than you, i find myself many times to be like that, and 90% of the times i realize it afterwards only. It is easy for me to call you out on this since i am the one defending my concept with the full picture of what it really is.

Ya... this isn't insulting at all... If you realize this and know this then why name your thread this?

Here is an experiment proposal. Force yourself into the state of mind that is supporting my idea, this is the most important, really change your mindset!

No, I don't support your idea on its basis. Paper rock scissors mechanics, giving a role where solo large ships are viable, etc.

Also... If I were you, then you'd be me, and you'd dislike your own idea!

 

[Xandorian]

• Single players would still not be able to take on a fleet solo as crew and supporting ships are needed to take out smaller fighters/boarding craft (unless the fleet was wildly incompetent and the solo player was an ace)

Did you even read my last point, and while I don't like rock paper scissors mechanics there really are no alternatives other than what we already have of one meta layout and all other vessels are for aesthetic purposes which limits effective shipbuilding (half the game's features) to finding the most efficient form of the meta.

 

[Venombrew]

@Cavilier210 this is a pointless topic, and to be honest no point wasting energy on it, devs would never put something this ridiculous in the game. they even said in the past they do not want turrets on ships, of any size and were even on the fence of considering them stations. i wouldn't waste my time on someone who thought structure can't move past their own ego, you see it when they resort to insults. dudes pretty rude, even @XenoCow was trying to see it his way and instead of being civil in his posts he prefers to make comments like,

This kind of state of mind allowed his intelligence to come forward and it actually resulted in me saying to him:

couldn't say anything like, "after a discussion, Xenocow came around to the idea" or anything descent even from a person trying to help defend his case. "allow his intelligence to come forward" kind of an asshole statement to one of the biggest contributor to info and test time in the game, as well a very helpful and polite person who was trying to see it and your way and defend your theory.

anyway, its an idea that someone who has zero access to the game can't even test its theory, but prefer to argue it as a fact even know it hasn't been simulated in anyway, no such device is actually in the game to even test it, and most importantly there is no direction desire of the devs to implenment something like this. at best he has a notion without any capability of being tested for validation, that is it, not a fact, just a theory and not even a good one. proper thing to do would be pitch an idea, give your throughts, read the feedback, and when opportunity of game play was available to test your theory and then post your results to back up your theory, instead of tryng to argue a point of view that basically holds zero water until it can be run through a multitude of scenarios, and trying to argue your point this hard with zero data is pretty asinine.

 

[Aha]

Thank you Venombrew and Cavilier210 for proving my point right!
I totally complimented @XenoCow saying that he used his intelligence in his arguments but alright. I pointed out how intelligent his attitude was all the way but yea, insult... okay

Ya... this isn't insulting at all...

To some it is insulting, to some it is enlightening, which is it is up to your character.
Thank you for your support once again, I appreciate it!

 

[Sir Nerdbird]

Unless auto turrets were made absolutely massive I don't see how they would be beneficial to large ships while also stopping small ships from using them. At that point they'd sort of lose their function as anti fighter weapons and would be a very big target.
While the radiation/rock-paper-scissors concept is interesting I think it is pretty far from the dev's overall view for the game. It's fine to say "what if...", but this would be a pretty extreme change to the game.

 

[Aha]

Unless auto turrets were made absolutely massive I don't see how they would be beneficial to large ships while also stopping small ships from using them. At that point they'd sort of lose their function as anti fighter weapons and would be a very big target.
While the radiation/rock-paper-scissors concept is interesting I think it is pretty far from the dev's overall view for the game. It's fine to say "what if...", but this would be a pretty extreme change to the game.

That is right!
I just posted the in depth presentation, take a look maybe.

 

[Lionard Freezer]

A personal thought of mine is:
Its not such a bad idea. But it just wouldnt work (the way you explain it).
Too little information and definition.
@Aha You still havent answered my question btw. Who do you want to empower? Afaik not the fighters, neither the big ships against fighters, but big ships against big ships? and then the ship with more crew will win even when both sides have autoturrets? Becourse crew is better than Autoturrets. So what changes?
Also as many people have already said... HOW DO YOU WANT TO KEEP AUTOTURRETS OFF SMALL SHIPS?
There is no such thing as size limitation in SB. You could make an autoturret big and heavy... but you could still put it on fighters. You could make it have a high energy consumtion... but you can have a fighter with 3 reactors. And what stops you from throwing armored autoturrets with a generator into the universe, waiting to be instance loaded and automaticly fire at the ship that appears (as long as its a fairly big ship)?
Also dont forget that SB is an mmo. Just like other mmo it shouldnt be ABLE to do everthing as a single player. Just like most mmorpgs need multiple people in a dungen, simply to survive or to solve puzzles. Its just as if you would try to make a nuke in rl. There is way too much to do for a single person to succssed.
Ik this is a game thats supposed to be fun, but how do autoturrets, that basicly dont enhance fighters against fighters, fighters against medium, fighters against big, medium against fighters, medium against medium, big against fighters and big against medium, create more fun?
Autoturrets, the way you defined them in this post, DONT HELP AGAINST THE CURRENT META. THEY ONLY HELP DESTROY BIGGER SHIPS. AND WE CANT BUILD GOOD BIG SHIPS BECOURSE FIGHTERS ARE JUST BETTER. SO HOW ARE AUTOTURRETS SUPPOSED TO HELP WITH THIS? OR WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HELP HERE? Please just answer my question already ;(.