Allowing players to customize ships to fit their needs is an excellent idea. The game supports this customization mechanic rather extensively, but it also incorporates a class system to manage and balance all the various structures in the game. The specialization aspect provides purpose to why someone might choose one particular class of vehicle over another. The "one size fits all" approach, while practical, is tempered by the fact that a specialized vehicle will always perform better at it's specialization than the generic jack of all trades ship that is designed to be good at everything. That specialization bonus is in turn balanced by the fact that a specialized vehicle can't do EVERYTHING. The trade offs and compromises, pros and cons, add variety and complexity to the game, that would otherwise be missing if a monstrous CV performed exactly like a tiny HV. To stay on topic, weapons, like vehicles, have different classes and capabilities to give them purpose. Otherwise, the game could have 1 gun or 1000 guns, but since they're all exactly the same, there would be no point to having more than one (other than cosmetics). NMS took the approach you describe in that every single ship behaves exactly the same way, it just looks different. While it makes for a much simpler game, it sacrifices so much depth. Empyrion has already moved beyond the Mine Craft, Gary's Mod, and NMS model of do whatever and pretend it's different.
My purpose to choose CV over SV is I want to fight with turrets instead of manually targeting each enemy and destroy them one by one. Its more effective when fighting with large amount of enemy players with cheap ships. My purpose to choose SV is I dont like turrets and want to target enemies manually. Or I dont have enough resources to use CV. But not "CV when in space or SV when on planets" also not "SV for fighting or CV for peaceful missions" because of allowing CVs in combat will make PVP much more interesting and various. At the moment only SV(4 rockets) vs SV(4 rockets) or SV vs BA is actual. Also things which are space only = thing that never happen in PVP. You are wrong. If the goal is to build a universal vehicle it must be possible. But this vehicle must be as expensive that building a lot of small vehicles specialized on specific thing will be much easier. Its the main reason why am I here. Monsterous CVs are now performed exactly like timy SVs and even worser. I described it earlier. My suggestion is not to make CVs universal but to make them useful as they need to be as they are 20-30 times harder to build than SVs and improve and balance PVP content. It looks stupid when small SV (1800 iron) that every noob can build is crushing intor oblivion the entire mothership (90 000 iron). It looks unreasonable when you CAN protect yourself with powerful turrets in space where is nothing to protect and you CAN'T protect something on planets where you are 90% of your time and where are thing that needs protection. It looks disbalanced when you have no reasons to build something instead of SV with 4 rockets and if you have 90k iron you mustnt build a frighter. Turrets are well balanced now. They are different. They are awesome. But they are disabled. P.S. Max turret count makes every battle designed vehicles same. There must be more complicated mechanic depending on structure size and allowing player to make different types of weaponry for BA/HV/CV for different reasons. For example "turret points" instead of max count. Each block provides 1 TP. Laser turret consumes 100 TP minigun consumes 30 TP artillery consumes 600 TP. If you have small base of 300 blocks you can place 3 lasers or 10 miniguns or 2 lasers + 3 miniguns. If its a great fortress of 1000 blocks it can be protected with 10 lasers or artillery + 4 lasers etc. If lasers max count is 6 and you have a choice to place 6 lasers or to place 6 lasers + artillery + rockets + others its evident that PVP players choose the second way always. But if the choice is 12 lasers or 6 lasers + artillery or 2 artillery it depends on player decision.
Two words: chin turrets. As in on an SV. It doesnt have to be as powerful as an HV turret, but I think it's silly that a modern attack helicopter has better weapon options than a futuristic space capable attack craft. Also, for HVs: coaxial machine guns. Let us add one to at least the artillery turret as an upgrade, along with the ability to add armor to it for that real tank look. But for now I'd like working landing gear that retract and keep the ship level on uneven ground.
what he said is not for pvp only. Im playing single mode and Id be happy to build an extra powerful starfighter as Star Wars imperial executor to raid a Drone Base with it flying towards the target and staying in range and enjoying the epic fire of ion cannons and all my artillery. There is an easy way to ruin every poi with sv crushing all you want. But the same way for cv didnt exist. Uhh... sad. sad.
Keep in mind that many things in the game are the way they are right now to keep it playable from a performance (fps) perspective. As the game progresses and becomes better optimized, we'll start to see improvements in limitations and capabilities. There is a lot of stuff behind the scenes that is still maturing.
according to described bug bases can really shoot plasmas lasers and artillery on planets. I cant see any problems with optimization in it. I hope the reason all turrets were banned was really to keep playable from a performance. but it looks like devs thought Laser Turrets are so powerful... let's disallow them on planets. And Plasmas. And Artillery. Want to see turrets in use? Enjoy Cannons. Big Guns are not for planetary kids like you. protecting yourself with turrets from drones works good with cannons but playing sieges or attacking with turrets didnt exist! dont know about how it looks in pvp but pvp is truly limitless. well balanced once it will work forever.
I am not entirely sure where to post this, so I'll just post it here. I feel that we need more options in the turret attack menu (where it shows Other Faction, Alien, Predator, and Prey) My turrets are shooting at a POI wall, or the ground, since they are aiming at the core. Drones and enemy turrets are shooting at my core (I assume). I can tell my turrets to not attack predators or prey, and not to attack other factions, this is a good thing, but I feel needs to be built upon a bit more. I want my turrets to target enemies, not the POI core, turrets fine, drones fine, but not the core. I wish I could tell my turrets to not shoot at a core, but at enemy drones and enemy turrets (regardless of the method of target acquisition). I am more asking for target priority and an option to not allow my turrets to shoot at alien cores. There is no option for this currently. More of a side note - I do not feel that the game should be "showing" me where the core is, at all. I (if I were a new player to the game) do not know where it is in the first place, so why do my turrets "know" where it is? I feel that they should not "know" where an alien core is. *** On the topic of multiplayer / PvP etc., this has nothing to do with this post. I am talking about single player exclusively, so before the PvP lovers jump on me, read this, thank you.
What I've felt for a long time is that ammo needs to have mass, energy weapons need to draw substantial amounts of power, and turret weapons should have more mass. These three changes would greatly help with the combat balance that we're seeking, while letting players figure out their own solutions. For example, the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile has a mass of 150kg. An SV carrying 100 of them is hauling around 15 tons of ammo, which is definitely going to require more engines (and more generators, and more fuel tanks, etc). If each pulse laser turret required 100MW of unused power, and consumed 30 fuel per shot (roughly 1 second at 100MW), and had twice or 5 times the mass as they currently do, it simply wouldn't be feasible to have anything but a truly massive CV bristling in turrets. Would you still have "Borg cubes" to deal with? Yes, but I don't see any way around that in general (I mean, Borg ships were extremely effective in Star Trek, and they are an efficient design, so . . . really the thing that we need is for engine exhaust to damage blocks, so cube ships at least need to have their engines exposed). I definitely agree that more fine-tunable targeting needs to be possible, from the general (allied vs enemy factions), to the specific (weapons, engines, shield generators (when they arrive), generators/fuel (maybe requiring some kind of scan first)). This would also encourage better ship design, as efforts would have to be made to protect the ship's subsystems.
Maybe it has been mentioned before, maybe not. But please let me aim with the manual gun that have no scope. Always disliked the fact that i can not aim with the starterpistol for example. Gives more feel to accuracy and immersion.
Iron sights are still sights! I agree... holding RMB should lift the gun up for tighter aiming down iron sights. Heck, even if it didn't actually do tighter aiming... the natural feel of pulling the gun up to 'aim' is better than it not responding to the RMB at all.
Pulse rifle: 25 round clip*60 damage = 1500 damage per clip Minigun: 250 round clip*30 damage = 7500 damage per clip @600rpm and 1200rpm respectively, they both have the same damage output. The only other difference is an ~80m difference in range and a small headshot bonus, neither of which is anywhere near enough to save the pulse rifle from it's place in your deconstructor. The minigun range is enough to kill anything with plenty of room to spare, especially in POI raids! Please buff the pulse rifle a bit (This is from a singleplayer PvE perspective, where range is completely irrelevant. The only enemies far away are drones, and they don't start shooting till about 120m away anyway)
Hey, it would be nice to be able to craft "modules" you can apply to a gun to add a Red dot scope, larger clip, more damage, less recoil, more range, better scope, Aog scope etc. red dot, range finder. Also craftable skins would be a cool addition. Thank you for the awesome work! Please keep adding from our ideas
Weapon clips are far too small at the moment IMO. Sometime it feels like I reload more than I actually fight
Especially on the pulse rifle. I would love it if it had some version with a 50-75 round magazine count. Epic weapon maybe?
I am in the process of building a 3 pronged pvp CV, each prong will stick out ahead of the rest of the ship, and each prong will have 1 mini-gun turret encased in 10 layers of combat steel. These will be decoy turrets so none of my other turrets get targeted as the rest of the turrets will be placed farther back. This is what the meta is becoming to game the current turret targeting system...and it doesn't feel right having to do this *shrug*
To be fair, the Miniguns actually ARE worth attacking first cause those Bullets are hard to dodge. Yeah sure the Homers might be what everyone wants to deal with first cause they home in of course, but they're lower DPS then Minigun Bullet Hell. Ya might actually be doing your enemy a favor by doing this. I woulda swore I thought it was supposed to be Player Sentry Guns that were supposed to be the best Decoys... Ya might wanna protect those Miniguns a bit more.
Here's a couple ways to balance turrets better IMHO... 1) Fire control computers: Cores can only control a small number of turrets... and after that minimum you need to install fire control computers which will use a lot of power, are large, and if destroyed will knock out the connected turret/turrets. 2) Turret-Mass Limits Ships can only mount so many turrets dependent on mass. The bigger the ship, the more guns you can bolt to it. Simple as that. 3) Sensors. Another way to make turrets be less OP would be to actually make their targeting signifigantly worse... and then have it so Radars actually have a practical use... they improve your accuracy by giving your ship targeting data. They'd need line of sight to work (though I'd have them be able to see through windows), but it would do the job of keeping people from burying their sensors in side the hull. 4) Storage limits. This will come later, but have it so capitol ammo is bulky as hell. Right now you only need a couple ammo crates on a VERY large ship. Eventually having it so you need a significant magazine to keep the damnable things fed would also limit size. Sure you can bolt on 150 turrets onto your brand new HMS F*$%slaughter with its billions of guns, but you either would have to have half your ships dedicated to magazine storage, or have less endurance than a man with the nickname "Ten Second Tim". 5) This is a general thought concept that can apply to not just ammo, but fuel cells, Jump Fuel, Oxygen tanks, and even active reactors... have them be explosive. Make people actually have to put thoughts into properly protecting their critical systems. A magazine explosion is no-ones friend, and would also make it so capitol fights wouldn't just be and endless slugging match until someone loses their core. 6) A mix there of or all of the above Fire Control would add a soft cap. Mass limits a hard cap. Exposed sensors would add easily exploited soft spots to even the most ludicrously large battle wagon. While the eventual magazine limits would make keeping the guns FED a chore... and volatility would make it so concern would have to be put into placement of critical systems which would inflate the sizes of dedicated warships to account for stuff like armored subsystems.
1) Fire control computers: I like it but would use class size as the soft limit Fire control system could be re tooled as a hard limit via diminishing return algorithms This make FCC a critical choice. Lose weapons by loosing FCC 2) Turret-Mass Limits Would be controls via the same rules FCC and class size 3) Sensors. I agree turrets should have a cone that they can hit in. The closer you are the better your aim. Surface Mounted sensors could help narrow this cone. This also gives the ability for enemies to knock out you accuracy. 4) Storage limits. I would go even further. Ammo crate would have very limited ammo say a max of 20 reloads. Ammo crates can only hold one type of ammo Ammo crates can't be reloaded in combat This would make a very explosive situation Many crate means many possible explosive point in your ship To be really evil I would make weapons explode if it is in the middle of a reload cycle and an ammo crate of that type of ammo explodes. 5) This is a general thought concept that can apply to not just ammo, but fuel cells, Jump Fuel, Oxygen tanks, and even active reactors... have them be explosive. Yes many things should blow up if hit. 6) A mix there of or all of the above Yes there all needed. The one thing missed is ammo need mass. These all could apply to BA as well.
Size class tends to be kinda buggered IMHO. It's too easy for a very small ship to be a huge size class. Maybe a ratio based on Size Class, dimensions, and mass? Would leave open some abuse but would be better than just one of them. Could work. Yep. What I was thinking, with the knocking out the accuracy. And if you add in some extreme range weapons to small craft like single shot aspect seeking torpedos you could defang a capitol ship from a distance if you're careful. Would make combined arms useful. I was thinking depending on the weapon type it could even be LESS than 20 reloads.... Might be a bit much. Yes. In a proper scifi game everything explodes dramatically. Oh yes. Honestly you should apply this to EVERYTHING. Rapid Unplanned Disassembly is a big part of space settings.
