Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Gatling turrets render make fast & small ships useless

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Yaddah, Sep 3, 2014.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Yaddah Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    114
    So the other day I built a pretty cool and nimble large ship designed as a bomber to attack stations, carriers, battleships and the like. The idea was to make a craft that could withstand gatling gun fire and be fast enough to evade rockets while also having the firepower to take out a ship section. So I made a gravity driven large ship with 4 large rocket launchers in the front, since small ships get shot out of the sky very easily and can also only shoot 4 rockets per launcher before having to reload at a hangar - not nearly enoguh to do significant damage.

    I was pretty happy with the result until I added one of my destroyer designs with 12 gatling turrets as a hostile ship for some target practice. It turns out that gatling turrets are OP. I couldnt even get close to the target. Instead the cockpit quickly got destroyed and I rammed into the side of the ship with 105 m/s (which was a cool sight tho ^^).
    When I tried to circle the target in a second attempt, I noticed that the turrets seem to aim much more intelligently than just a few patches ago, actually accurately leading the bomber that buzzed around the destroyer at 105 m/s. They dealt consistent damage to the same spot until the heavy armor ripped and the bombers interior broke. While I welcome this new aiming behavior of the turrets, they also nullify any strategy that involves attacking a large ship with smaller faster crafts making them almost obsolete imo. I wasn't expecting to take the destroyer out with just one bomber of course, but I thought that I would at least be able to do SOME damage before getting shot out of the sky. However I think not even with 3 of these attacking at the same time I could've done anything. I find that kind of sad because it means carriers that use fighters/bombers to attack and defend are completely useless.

    I included a link to the workshop file in which I did the experiment so that u can see how impossible it is.
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=309612568

    I dont know how to balance this out but imo gatling turrets need a kind of nerf. Maybe a slower barrel turning speed? What do u guys think?
     
  2. Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    I think that it is pretty normal that one fighter can't hold up against 12 gatling turrets, but they are certainly not overpowered. Try it with 3 different people to create some sort of diversion.
     
  3. Yaddah Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    114
    But it wasnt simply one fighter. It was a large ship fully clad in heavy armor flying at 105 m/s constantly...
     
  4. Lecic Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    310
    slow moving, heavy armored decoy torpedoes are the best friend of bombers and fighters.

    I think people slapping massive amounts of gatling guns on their ships will be less common in survival mode, as bullets are somewhat expensive.

    They could have a bit of a spray, which would be unnoticeable at close range (<50m) but at longer ranges could lead to a slightly increased survivability chance.
     
  5. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    I have the feeling the biggest reason to ask for shields is because star wa eehm sci-fi. not because people think about the consequences.
     
  6. Tcsisek Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    543
    Honestly, I believe that all wepons need a little nerf (other than player made) the Gatling guns damage/RoF should be reduced by 10-25% or something around that as well as giving them a SLIGHT spread so they damage more than 1 block, missiles need a bigger nerf to reducing ther blast size (or making it so armor actual reduces it) and a moderate damage reduction 15-30 percent. Even some heavy armored ships seem a bit fragile to me and I'd prefer my ship takes more than 15 to 30 seconds to kill if I'm lucky or it's very heavily armored. The only wepon that I feel is a bit under powered is the warhead, possibly buff that by 10-20%. (I have no idea what the numbers realy are and I'm guessing how effective they would be with the changes, any criticism on that is encouraged.)
     
  7. Aurenian Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    373
    I've noticed that the turrets are pretty good at predicting your path if you maintain a steady course and speed. If you change course and speed frequently it can take them a while to home in again. At least it takes the streams of bullets a while to be hitting you again.
     
  8. Maegil Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,633
    Dear Xir:

    Gravity ships violate the 3rd Sacred Law of St. Newton, and are deemed as a HERESY!!!
    If HERESY is allowed to spread, soon all gameplay balance shall be lost, and there shall be a race for HERETIC ships; and the Universe shall lose coherence, and it shall be consumed whole, and it shall be drowned in a sea of nonsense, whereupon all sensible beings shall flee in despair to other games. So it has been foreseen!

    Thus, The Only Acceptable Punishment for HERESY is the impounding and destruction of these Most Unholy Harbingers of Gameplay Doom.
    Rid the Universe of it by yourself, or be prepared for our aid in doing it!

    Most cordially yours,
    Inquisitor Maegil.

    P.S.: "u" is a vowel, not a word. Please refrain from intentionally dumbing down your language, it's not deemed as "cool" among most company (such as the present). The only thing cool here is the reception to such proud displays of pseudo-illiteracy. Thank you.
     
  9. Yaddah Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    114
    @Aurenian: Yes, I've noticed that too and its pretty cool that the turrets are able to predict movement like that. But adding a slight spray (as it also exists in real life) is probably a good way of balancing them. Missiles on the other hand do need a clear damage nerf, or instead we need a reliable tool of shooting them down. That could be done with lasers!

    @Maegil: "U" is the vowel we use to say "you". It is simply easier to type and everybody understands it. Its not dumb, but intelligent to use it as it saves alot of time and energy without any significant disadvantages. :)
    Yes, gravity drives dont make any sense, but neither do gravity generators. And yes they are a cheap and overly efficient way of propelling a ship, but I doubt that they will be removed, because I simply cant think of how and also they are FUN! They should probably balance them a bit more. Maybe by decreasing how much artificial mass blocks get affected by gravity so that the drives have to be bigger and bulkier (and consume more pwoer). But it seems that balance is not yet the first priority of the devs as seen in the current state of the weapons.
     
  10. Maegil Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,633
    Gravity generators aren't based on any current scientific knowledge, but are a marginally tolerated necessary evil which also doesn't violate any known laws; whereas gravity ships are in direct opposition to physical laws, and thus are seen by the Physics Inquisition as heretic.
    The same goes for completely enclosed thrusters, or thrusters aimed to different directions sharing a single vectored outlet.

    If you're flying a complying, though suspicious ship (none, or few, visible thrusters), and see a Physics Inquisition ship, immediately power down and request to be inspected (thus proving your innocence) lest you get attacked. Physics Inquisition ships on official business can be distinguished by a red capital "I" with serif and white in the middle.

    Be advised that Inquisitors aren't required to comm a suspect of heresy before attacking; all these posts are a courtesy.
     
  11. Wombats Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    HMM... so let's see here... let's see how many problems we can find with this statement...

    1. Your ship only goes in a straight line (I wonder if the turret will realize this and lead me?)

    2. Your ship isn't small; it's quite large if it uses a gravity drive

    3. TRUE small ships are rather good at dodging fire from turrets. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a good pilot in a good small ship is functionally immune from turrets at this point in time.

    4. If you can't do significant damage with 4 rocket volleys I don't hesitate to say you aren't going to be doing much more with the 20 or so the large version gives you
     
  12. waterlimon Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,499
    Well it shouldnt be such that you need 50 gatling turrets to defend yourself against some random person who scraped together the little bits of magnesium laying around and made a missile or two for his small drilling ship refurbished into a 'fighter'.
     
  13. xphoenixxx Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    529
    Change speed and course frequently... also consider that motion is relative, so if you are hard to hit, likewise you would find it hard to hit them.

    If you must use gravity tech, might I suggest the following:

    Use a gravity generator to throw out decoy spam - like chaff dispensers, then target hostile gatlings with manual missiles. Some players have even used layered sphere generators to make a "floating" field like a shield.

    and/or

    Only use gravity tech to bring you up to speed; or braking - dont run them continuously. (make some terminals which let you "blip" gravity thrust for emergency course changes, but rely on your rockets) If a "warp" drive existed it would fly in a straight line; changing course at those speeds would realistically snap a ship or paint the interior walls with the passenger splatter. You get the same thing on titan class and warp drive workshop engines - you accelerate fast but virtually impossible to realistically alter course beyond braking again. (you could have more pointing in other directions, but given you need an entire large nuclear power array just to power one or two of these, short of a massive capacitor bank you can throw any pretense of realism out the window if you use more than 2 or so.)

    and/or

    Enclose vulnerable points in more Armour

    and/or

    Build breech ships (ram a hole in the side of the enemy both gaining access to interior, and getting you out of turret field of fire) typically heavily armored, and have auto locking landing pads to "grab on" - careful aim can also disable one of said turrets
     
  14. mikeloeven Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,162
    this is why we need a heavy sniper weapon like my suggestion here because it would allow small ships to take out gatlings at range although stations would probably need to be given point defense lasers with a similar range to counter this. and than the arms race begins anew or worse the longer range of base defenses results in the unintended exchange of fire between two asteroid bases
     
  15. Jikanta Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    418
    The whole point of sending a swarm of fighters at a large ship is to give it too much to shoot at..
     
  16. Neotician Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    440
    Small ships can already take out gatling guns at a range, manual weapons have a 1km range, turrets have a 800m range, you can just sit at range and shoot till there are no more green beams :p.
    Also, gatling guns are already weak; their projectiles move incredibly slow, they have a low rate of fire and they have a short range.
    As a comparison:
    The Phalanx CISW is analagous to a gatling turret.
    It was introduced in 1980 (barely 100 years before this game takes place)
    It will fire 4500 rounds per minute, with an effective range 3600 meters and a muzzle velocity of about 1100 m/s
    If we had these in the game (100 year old technology), within the first 10 seconds of having come within 3600m of a ship with 12 gatling turrets, you will have been hit by 6050 bullets :p assuming they all have a firing solution.
     
  17. Insignus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    138
    Well. Just looking at your ship design, you appear to have several issues here:
    One, your cockpit is frontally visible (I.E. you can see out of the cockpit. If you can see out of the cockpit, you can be shot out of the cockpit by that which can see you. Frontal armor designs can obviate this at the expense of aesthetics and frontal visibility. If this is a problem for you, wait until camera controllable vehicles come into play.

    Two, you have a very large cross section in all three axes: I.E. your ship is both wide, tall, and deep.

    Pick two of those. Having all three means that you are a giant barn for gatling cannons.

    Three: Do not expect to create super fighters and have them pull off against destroyers.

    Four, your ship is under-armed for its role. You aren't going to get headway against 12 gatling turrets using only 4 launchers (That I can see from your attack pattern). Four launchers is generally what you would put on a multi-role fighter. You want 8-12 for a anti-destroyer bomber. This is expensive. But it has high one shot capability vs. turrets.

    Let me boot up and pull some screens for you. These are from what I unofficially designate as an A7 (Because like its namesake, it is also a flying brick).

    [​IMG]


    Note the excessive frontal armament and armor. Also note the minimalist retro thrusters and how the cockpit is completely blocked by armor plating.
    [​IMG]
    Note the excessive armor in between the front edge and the cockpit, as well as the top cockpit visibility. This is to enable the steering by third person (The more you block the cockpit, the more the third person goes nuts). Note the connector for docking, storage, and ammunition transfer. As a prototype, this one lacks a landing gear, which will probably be placed on the sides. The blast door blocks on the rear are superfluous. They protect non critical components and are perhaps the craft's only aesthetic and cost saving conceit.

    Point is: This thing is ugly as hell, but it does the job. It is a reasonably effective combat craft. The sides are comparatively unarmored, with exposed components, but that will be fixed in the second block craft, if I pass this for production. The bottom is fully armored. Also, all thrusters are symmetrically placed. There are four main engines, for redundancy purposes. They are also the main way you slow down (Turn and burn).

    The fun part about this fighter is that, one does destroy the cockpit during a head-on run, the enemy destroyer will still die horribly. The ship has sufficient acceleration, at mass, with enough armor plating that, in tests against ships of appromixately 9 gatling guns, the ship continued on after cockpit kill (About 3 complete passes later) and successfully blew out large parts of the enemy craft through kinetic kill.

    It is a big armored missile that shoots missiles and can become a missile. I just happened to stick a cockpit in the middle. Its not perfect, but there are design principles here that you might want to adapt if you want to build successful fighter craft. Note: To save on power generation costs, the ship uses two batteries. Its armament consists of 10 launchers and two gatling guns.

    Edit: I don't mean to be overly critical of your ship. It looks very cool and impressive. But from the performance you are describing, you might consider using some of these methods to rework some of its design elements.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.