Return to “Suggestions”

Re: Weapons

#32
Weapons...mmmmmmmm, I like weapons.

In most games space (or for the astute - 0-g weaponry) are mostly super complicated pieces of advanced technology.
What most people seem to forget is that the vacuum of space present and projects a lot of advantages for using simplified weaponry. But we love clever stuff!
Let's discuss some of the weapon systems (from a pseudo-scientific PoV)!

1.[LAZ0RZ (pew-pew a la fantastique)]

Lasers are highly focused and amplified streams of photons ( "laser" as most of you guys here know stands for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). The laz0r in layman's terms is thus an amplified stream of energy, concentrated (or focused) over a small area.
PROs :
- range - lasers tend to have a stupendous range (because light-speed) and what's more yummy is that they do not lose optimal range (the effectiveness of a laz0rs at 5000m from the emitter is only slightly smaller than at 5m from the emitter).
- tracking - because light-speed and all that good stuff, firing a laz0r at a ship means an almost 99% chance to hit every time
For example in EVE lasers can miss, but this is greatly exaggerated for game-play purposes, because once the targeting computer can obtain a lock and a tracking solution on the target the moment the emitter fires is, in theory, the same moment that the beam will reach its target - of course this argument can be countered by stating that the mechanical component of the tracking mechanism will always be slower in adapting to things like angular velocity and what not (Imagine a Roman balista that fires laz0rs, yea the beam will get to the target instantly but the time it takes for the Roman legionnaires to move/rotate/pitch the balista in order to hit a moving target can result in a "miss". This argument remains open to debate, but frankly if we got to the point at which we can focus the power of the frigging Sun on an area of 2 square centimeters I think we also would have sufficiently advanced targeting computers in order to track moving targets and predict their trajectory effectively.)
CONs :
- power supply - any type of laz0r needs a power supply that is directly proportional to the destructive power it can project (you wouldn't make a laz0r that can pass 1m of reinforced steel from a 1.5V battery)
- power drain - laz0rs are usually quite draining on the battery and the drain increases exponentially with the amount of time the beam is kept active (and in order to do lasting damage to that 1m of reinforced steel you will need to keep it up for a bit).
- AoE : laz0rz generally have very small AoE damage (and we all know that in the case of laz0rz increasing the area of effect will decrease the damage dramatically, as the beam will no longer be highly focused).

[!]Giant spaceships firing laz0rz at one another is like 17th century sail frigates trying to sink one other by knifing (albeit with highly penetrating knives) each others hulls - the job will get done eventually but most of the crew will have aged a bit in the process. It's fancy in sci-fi but most scientists agree that it's not the way to go.[!]

2.[Railgunz (dem KEPs)]

KEP stands for Kinetic Energy Penetrator. They are also called KE weapons.
A KEP differs from a bullet in the fact that it does not use explosives in order to be propelled but instead focuses on its kinetic energy to destroy or inflict damage to the target. They are the main ammunition used for the rail-gun weapon system and to their friends they are also called "slugs".
In the case of railguns a electromagnetic field (there are other ways too but I won't get into that) is used to induce kinetic energy into a KEP, thus launching it towards a target at super high velocity with the intention to maim, dismember, obliterate or otherwise inflict serious structural and bodily harm to the target with the main expected result being disintegration, vaporization and death (depending on the nature of the target).
PROs:
- range - (we're still talking about space here) although they don't have the range of laz0rs, a KEP in space will not (significantly) lose it's kinetic energy when hurling towards targets at long distances, thus their destructive power is conserved, if not amplified. Now on Earth they have achieved mind-blowing (pun intended) ranges and damage with the famous Naval Rail-guns, however on Earth due to gravity and all that the KEP will lose momentum and thus kinetic force exponentially to the distances it travels. Imagine what would happen in space. Another thing that will function in the advantage of rail-guns in space there is no air (obviously) and thus the "combustion" effect (basically the KEP leaves the rail-gun so fast that due to friction the air around it turns to incendiary plasma and slightly damages the mechanism every time ) will not appear thus keeping maintenance of the accelerator parts to a minimum.
- damage - well now, if it hits...let's just say you don't wanna be there. On Earth the Naval rail-guns have been shown to penetrate blocks of cement and steel effectively also naval plating and all that good stuff. But wait it gets better - in theory, since we're talking about kinetic force here, there is more energy generated exponentially to the resistance the KEP encounters when slamming the target. Imagine this : you're a 14th century knight. You got your full body armor or, you're basically a living tank. Now, even if my pea-shooter rail-gun is not able to penetrate your armor, the higher the resistance encountered when it hits you (mighty steel cuirass you're having there) the more kinetic energy released! So even if your armor resist you will be knocked a ways back, suffer extensive burns on the inside of the point of impact or your organs will experience trepanatio (as in slamming into other organs) due to the force released. That's why modern tanks have a lot of low angles on their armor - to deflect the blow from a sabot (KEP) round, instead of man-tanking the round and causing everybody inside a very bad day. ALSO the bigger the metal slug I'm launching at you the bigger the force released and thus damage.
- simplicity - it's a frigging metal brick - no assembly required. You just need a foundry.
- AoE - usually a KEP will tear through it's target instead of making a surgical cut like a laz0r - I'll let you fill in the blanks...
CONs:
- tracking - here's the bad part - basically you're shooting metal bricks at hyper-velocities. If your target moves a lot or rapidly enough, all that destructive force is wasted and your KEP will keep going and going and going ...well, you get it. As such, the rail-guns need sophisticated tracking mechanisms for trajectory and motion prediction. thus they would be more suited for close range where the chance to hit is increased.
- power supply - the rail-guns also need extensive power supply units in order to generate that electromagnetic acceleration. One difference is however that at least in space the weight of the KEP won't matter that much.

[!] The main weapon system that the scientists predict to be used in space [!]

3.[Artillery(ye olde ball and powder)]

The modern rounds have 2 distinct parts. First, the projectile (this one is commonly referred to as the bullet) and the cartridge.
The cartridge contains the propellant and it's ignition mechanism. You launch the ignition mechanism which turn the propellant into an explosion which sends the projectile (bullet) merrily on it's way to a head-shot. The projectile buries itself in the skull of your enemy causing severe trauma and/or death, the cartridge is ejected and a new round is loaded. Simple, efficient and to quote from a movie "That's how daddy did it, that's how America does it...and it's worked out pretty well so far."
PROs:
- rapid firing - it may not do a lot of damage but considering you're basically spraying this at your target - something will come of it.
- power supply - since each round carries it's own power supply the weapon system would be quite small (500 auto-cannons sticking out of your mining barge)
- power drain - they are mechanisms functioning basically on gas-operation (the gas generated when a round was fired is used to lead the next round) thus no capacitor, battery, energy bank whatevs required.
- cheap - as the most rudimentary piece of technology except spears, bows and flushing toilets, in 25th and 1/2 century this will be basically free.
CONs:
- amount - you need a lot of assembly and a lot of magazines, which in turn occupy a lot of space.
- tracking - since the bullet is actually a miniaturized grand-daddy of the KEP, the auto-cannons or artillery cannons will suffer from the same predicament as the rail-guns - target is harder to hit if moving fast.

4. [Missiles(dodge this m&*#%ker!)]

The missiles and more particularly the guided missile (unguided ones are called rockets mkay?) is another one of the weapon systems of the future.
Although there are many intricate and complicated parts in a missile, the ones we're interested in are the warhead, the fuel bay, the engine and the guidance system.
When a missile is launched its guidance system either acquires a target (based on specific parameters, like heat for ex. ) or one is fed to it by a computer (like coordinates). It then uses the fuel to power it's engine to follow and reach the target. And then goes boom.
PROs:
- diversity - is as some say the spice of life - and missiles embody this perfectly. generally missiles carry various warheads designed to deal a specific type of damage to the target (nuclear, chemical, incendiary. cockroaches etc.)
- tracking - if within optimal distance, a missile is normally guaranteed to hit (flares and such don't come into account) no matter how weird the target moves.
- power drain - they are self-propelled.
- cheap - like artillery in the 25th and a 1/2 century they will be quite cheap compared to other weapon systems.
CONs:
- range - a missile's flight time is generally a result of the marriage between its top speed and flight time (for how long will its fuel lasts). Say a missile's engine does a top speed of 6 m/s and has enough fuel to last it 9s when at top speed. It's range will thus be 54m. Other weapon systems like the rail or laz0r or artillery will generally keep going, ricochet, bump or pester targets beyond the intended one if they miss. Missiles will just go dead or detonate when their fuel is expended. However there are many types of missiles and engines (think ballistic)
- speed - directly related to the statement above - if the target can outrun the missile then basically there is no threat.

4.1[Rockets(the ones that take you out from space not in it)]

Bla-bla mostly the same as missiles only that they do not have a guidance system.
Rockets are generally used to present thine far away enemies with the gift of mass destruction.
They are bigger and bulkier generally than missiles and thus carry more destructive warheads.

Most of the Missile PROs and CONs apply except the tracking one. A rocket is basically a projectile that carries the wrath of God but moves at a sloth's pace and has the intelligence of a walnut. It will ruin everything and everyone at the target location, but ONLY at the target location and ONLY if it gets there.

5. Blasters("eat green s&%^ and die!") / Plasma Cannons / Everything-else-with-plasma
This one is in the hypothetical-but-crazy idea-box so that's why I've left it last.
So basically a blaster fires a concentrated hot blob of plasma. That's about it.
This plasma is generally presented as being encapsulated in some force-field of some sort otherwise it would dissipate in the cold vacuum of space. What happens to this plasma when reaches it's target ? IMO it will still dissipate when slamming into the target as the cold dark depths of space are quite unfriendly to it. But it looks good in sci-fi. Personally I think it's like spilling burning oil on a tank - it may be a nuisance but nothing life-threatening. Probably more suitable for planetary combat.

Comment away!

Re: Weapons

#33
Apollo13 wrote:A weapon shooting lightning (like in star wars "Force Lightning") would be epic.
As in the Formics' fighters in Ender's Game? Awesome!

This thread is over a year old by the way, and if I have understood correctly, weapon's have already taken care of, and will be as they are now in LT 1.0

P.S. One suggestion: don't let the guns shoot straigth through the ship!
In space, no one will hear you scream. #262626
I've never played a space sim. Ever.
Vos estis tan limes.

Re: Weapons

#34
Just FYI: There are quite a lot of topics on weapon types already. Some with a lot more detail than this one.
We even have a sticky for this stuff. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.

Re: Weapons

#35
I looked at the Commonly Proposed Ideas-thread and picked a random (old) weapons-thread to "unload" my small idea. :oops:
And Entitiy followed me, with his complete arsenal of weap0nZ - what have I done? :lol:

Re: Weapons

#36
Well... this thread is already 'sticked' and therefore a valid target for all kinds of related ideas.
Hence I probably should use it to ask/propose the followin sugggestion (which, as always, is most likely not the first time mentioned.)

My question is: Will all weapons in LT be assembled on turrets and therefore be able to aim at other targets than those directly in front of your spacecraft? If the answer is 'Yes', let me follow up with my suggestion:

What about two general weapon layouts:
1. Small/medium weapons placed on turrrets, able to track any target in range (even if not exactly in movement direction).
2. Large ("over-sized"), fixed weapons that can only target enemies directly in front of your spaceship.

Which weapon size is suitable for turrets is relative to the ship size, of course:
Large battleships will be able to use 20 Giga-O-Zap-Lasers on turrets as lateral battery while a fighter with a single copy of this component will literally exist as "Big Gun with Thrusters" and has to head directly to his opponent in order to hit. But if he does so, he will do way more harm than another fighter layout with two flexible, turret-assembled "Mini-Zipp"-Lasers Mk2.

I think that this two general options will lead to interesting tactical decisions (penetration power vs. maneuverability) and fundamentally different flying/fighting experiences (fixed weapons should lead to very interesting dogfights).

P.S.
Large ship classes might have their own "oversized"-weapon, too: Think of a 'Death Star' with its 'Planet Destroyer'...

Re: Weapons

#38
Apollo13 wrote:I looked at the Commonly Proposed Ideas-thread and picked a random (old) weapons-thread to "unload" my small idea. :oops:
And Entitiy followed me, with his complete arsenal of weap0nZ - what have I done? :lol:
Don't worry about necro-posting. We encourage it!

That being said, I'm sure if some unconventional (like the lightning cannon) weapons are suggested, I'm sure there is always room for more than the traditional ones.

Welcome to the forums all. :wave:
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.

Re: Weapons

#39
Since this topic is back to life again...

What was wrong with Freelancer system of weaponry? Well, back in Freelancer we had:

Laser weapons, Photon weapons, Plasma weapons, Particle weapons, Neutron weapons, EMPs, Tachyon (WTF?) weapons...and missiles, and torpedoes, and stuff.

I never really liked some parts of it, mostly because of the silliness of the technobabble involved. I'd like to see something more physics-based in LT, just because LT is better, but conserving the overall Freelancer spirit.

So,

Laser weapons - long range; damage is not very high and it slowly decreases with range; instantly hitting the target. Need only energy to fire. Can be beam-type and pulse-type; pulse lasers are generally more powerful and correspond to photon weapons in Freelancer. Better against the hull.

Particle accelerators - throw charged particles at really high speeds at your enemy. Take said particles from the reactor so they are practically not needing any ammunition. Energy-hungry beasts with good damage and short range; affect nicely both the hull and the shields.

Plasma weapons - a step up from particle accelerators; throw more stuff at the enemy. Deal massive damage; very short range, slow rate of fire; very power-hungry. Strip away shields and eat away the hull.

Railguns/coilguns - need ammunition. Throw high-velocity metal slugs at the enemy. Low damage to the shields; massive damage to the hull; require less energy than plasma weapons. Long-range weapons.

EMP discharges - some sort of Tesla-coil-based thingie; extremely short range but strips away the shield in no time.

Anti-matter weapons - of particle and plasma variety; the same as particles accelerators or plasma weapons but need anti-matter as ammunition. Short-range; insane amounts of damage; in case of plasma-type weapons anti-matter explosions occur in volume -> nearby ships are also damaged. Use with care.

Homing missiles - both auto-seeking fire-and-forget and homing missiles. Can deliver conventional, nuclear, anti-matter or EMP warheads. EMP warheads double as cruise disruptor switching off engine's cruise mode and disabling ship's systems. Nukes and anti-matter have the same effect + damage. All-in-all, those are long-range precision strike weapons. Should be more powerful than in Freelancer, but fall short of insta-kill capability.

Torpedoes - rockets that sacrifice speed and manoeuvrability for huge warheads. For taking out really big targets such as capital ships and stations after squashing their defences.

+ for capital ships and stations:

Flak, grapeshot and wide beam plasma weapons - affect targets over large area; for taking down fighters.

:)
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.

Re: Weapons

#40
Hello all.

Beyond the form weapons take, I'd like to raise the question of alternative or supporting weaponry. Perhaps again, I haven't read the entire forum yet.

What I mean is that almost all proposed weapons are variations on the theme of "destroy the target". Which is valid of course, that is what weapons do. I'm just wondering if there is room in this game for energy draining/leeching, weapon suppression, movement impairment and such. Some of these have already been mentioned I believe.

It's just that I like the image of two warring factions having the option to not only have an arms race, but also research counter armaments for whatever their enemy is best at or uses most. So when you are beset by swarms of missiles, advanced point defense might be the answer. Or inventing a missile which creates a zone which slows ships, so that your heavy cannons can finally hit those pesky flitting fighters.

How about boarding parties or other methods of changing the ownership of an object? I'd assume these to be very expensive in any or all of time, energy and resources. But a faction which manages to do this effectively would be awesome, no? *CoughBorgCough*.

Another thing. How will mines be implemented? Their own weapon type or just another form of missile/drone/probe/fighter ?


Ok, enough rambling. I hope I have made at least some sense and am looking forward to everyone's insights.

Re: Weapons

#41
Echander wrote:Hello all.

Beyond the form weapons take, I'd like to raise the question of alternative or supporting weaponry. Perhaps again, I haven't read the entire forum yet.

What I mean is that almost all proposed weapons are variations on the theme of "destroy the target". Which is valid of course, that is what weapons do. I'm just wondering if there is room in this game for energy draining/leeching, weapon suppression, movement impairment and such. Some of these have already been mentioned I believe.

It's just that I like the image of two warring factions having the option to not only have an arms race, but also research counter armaments for whatever their enemy is best at or uses most. So when you are beset by swarms of missiles, advanced point defense might be the answer. Or inventing a missile which creates a zone which slows ships, so that your heavy cannons can finally hit those pesky flitting fighters.

How about boarding parties or other methods of changing the ownership of an object? I'd assume these to be very expensive in any or all of time, energy and resources. But a faction which manages to do this effectively would be awesome, no? *CoughBorgCough*.

Another thing. How will mines be implemented? Their own weapon type or just another form of missile/drone/probe/fighter ?


Ok, enough rambling. I hope I have made at least some sense and am looking forward to everyone's insights.
Welcome to the forums :wave: . I'd say something witty but I've been :ghost: ed way to many times.

On that note, I agree with everything you said except for the thing on boarding parties. I'd prefer it if there was an 'abandon ship' option that essentially left your ship as a floating hulk that anyone could just pick up if they came across it. :shifty:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!

Re: Weapons

#42
Since this is largely a procedural game, one thing I'd like to see is procedural weapons. So any time you go weapon shopping, or scavenge off derelicts, you have the chance to analyze a weapon to see if it is something better than what you have. Stats like range, damage, accuracy, rate of fire, etc. and randomly generating cool names, would really make combat and looting more interesting.

And although this is a weapons thread, obviously this applies to all ship parts: scanners, hulls, engines, armor, etc.

Re: Weapons

#44
Cornflakes_91 wrote: Thats what the research and production mechanics are for ;)
Any updates on what we will be getting/seeing as far as this is concerned, Cornflakes? I was kinda hoping we would be treated to the pretty Christmas tree approach but I'm not sure if that is still in favour with Josh and the new development team. :angel:

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron