Turrets and hull volatility (oh, and gates)

[Kamo]

I just had an idea yesterday. Instead of an fixed hard cap on turrets or a hard cap by volume, a soft cap. The idea would be:

• Blocks would be more or less volatile due to their type (normal hull would dampen volatility, making it useful). An average would be like "25 %"
  
• Turrets would add volatility to the entire ship depending on turret size and ship volume, because they are most likely introducing explosive things in it due to energy or ammo production.
  
• Volatility would be an exponential damage multiplier. So someone would be able to put as much turrets as she desires, but if too much turrets are added the ship would explode at the slightest shot.
  
• If the server can compute it, volatility added by turrets could be compounded by block exposition (so if a block "hardpoint" is "jutting out", it will obviously take more shots because of the exposure, but it'll expose the ship to less danger). In fact, it may be as simple as calculating the distance to the ship's center of mass ?
  

It may be kind of a bad idea as as always, it shamelessly promotes "bigger is better", but it would be more logical than wasting upgrade slots to add turrets. (TCS may be repurposed to damage control units that would reduce volatility for a roughly equal amount of turrets' worth.)

 

An alternate idea about turret count: A base turret maximum count that takes into account not volume, but exposed surface to volume ratio, so the game would deduce "this ship has four angles of approach, hence four minimal turrets to cover it" ::) ? It would have a similar effect to volatility as ships designed to maximize surface to volume ratio would expose more blocks and more surface to shoot at, reducing the ship's overall resistance...

 

Another things that I'd like to see would be ship renaming, sector renaming and especially jump gate construction, to put player systems on-grid, named and all !

Constructing a gate would need something like at least 1 million credit per gate, then establishing a link would need money and enough reach on both gates. To calculate the reach of a gate, a Quantum Hyperspace Module would have to be integrated in it, and all its characteristics would be effective.

• Jump range would simply add to the reach (a +3 would give a 2+3.5=5.5 sector reach
  
• Radar range would add half of itself to the reach (a +4 radar range would have the same effect as +2 jump range)
  
• Recharge energy would increase money gained by ships getting by the gate (as it would need less energy to maintain the link)
  
• Hyperspace cooldown would decrease money needed for the link (wasting a module that would be a time-saver for an explorer's ship to reduce the amount of grinding needed to establish a new trade route).
  

Linking would block access to the module, unlinking would free it.

The link cost would be free below the 2.5 reach as any ship would be able to warp there so it wouldn't theoretically establish new trade routes. Above, it would ask for expontientially more money (something like ((distance - 2.5) ^ sqrt(2)) * 1 500 000, rounded to the nearest hundred, would be kinda balanced).

There would also be gate tiers, with maximum reach and size, and they would also logically need material.

• Iron gates would cost 1 million credits and 10 000 Iron, be as small as normal gate, have a max range of 6, and be unable to link sectors between rifts.
  
• Titanium gates would be the default gate, costing 4 million credits and 10 000 Titanium, and having a max range of 8.
  
• Naonite gates would cost 9 million credits and 15 000 Naonite, be 50% bigger than a Titanium Gate, and have a max range of 12.
  
• Trinium gates would cost 16 million credits and 20 000 Trinium, be 100% bigger than a Titanium Gate, and have a max range of 16.
  
• Xanion gates would cost 25 million credits and 25 000 Xanion, be 150% bigger than a Titanium Gate, and have a max range of 20.
  
• Ogonite gates would cost 36 million credits and 30 000 Ogonite, be 200% bigger than a Titanium Gate, and have a max range of 24.
  
• Avorion gates would cost 49 million credits and 35 000 Avorion, would generate a true wormhole when linked, yielding no max volume, nor max range, and the ability to cross the Inner Sphere Boundary. Disadvantages: Avorion gates would only link to other Avorion gates, and cause problems while unlinking (massive xsotan invasion, or from creatures living in wormholes?).
  

[Sir Charles]

While I am a sworn enemy of 'bigger is better', I do absolutely LOVE your idea of gates. Only the avorion thing seems a little OP to me, what about gates of higher material also requiring more rare upgrades, like grey or above for Iron, white or above for Titanium, green or above for- You get the idea I guess... So You have to sacrifice your precious legendaries for building an Avorion gate (which You would problably anyways cause of range, but I still like the idea of it. Also I am not sure about the increased size.

When it comes to your idea for turrets: As already stated I don't like any bigger is better "improvements", but I think it was stated on the road map, that we will get the possibility to get upgrades integrated on shipyards and repair docks - additionally to the existing method - making them more efficient but us unable to remove or switch them without one of these stations. 

 

[Kamo]

I just got wind from the reddit of a wonderful other idea for turrets~, from someone called eduty :)

This may be way out in left field, but I'd like dedicated "tactical" and "mount" cubes to determine the size and number of turrets the player can can have active and where they're placed on the ship.

 

You're not limited to the maximum number of mount cubes, just how many you can have "active" at any given time. So a ship could have multiple weapons mounted for different scenarios,

 

Say you had 4 mounts, but only 2 tactical stations, meaning you could only run 2 turrets at a time.

 

You could have two mounts dedicated to point defense and run them as you close in on a hostile ship. When you're within close range, deactivate the PDs and switch to your hull melters.

 

Game could also use "chaff" torpedoes to disgruntle torpedoes and fighters.

 

I don't like the idea of using dedicated blocks, but the activation/deactivation seems nice.

That would be awesome for making "broadside"-like attack passes :D, in addition to "turret groups" dedicated to different ranges !

[Wanderer]

 

 

But what happens is this: one puts some pdc on a group, group 1. These are on al the time. Next up, he makes 2 (or more) groups of turrets and switches behind those 2 groups. Why? Because cooldownweapons then no longer ruin sustained fire, but then without sacrificing alpha damage so i dont think long range-short range groups will be made but groups with the same turrets to counter cooldown. These groups are group 2/3. Voila, you need duble the turrets but sustained fire. Simply switch between those 2 groups