Jump To Lightspeed Archive

So as a guild event, we decided to go out with a couple fully crewed Novas and some fighter support and see what these big boys could do. I would like to say we had a great time and are eager to do this sort of group activity again, but that would be a lie.

MPS are currently, IMHO, not workable as turrets are currently implemented. The problem is simple - when the ship moves/turns, the turret moves/turns right along with it. Now I like a good challenge as much as the next guy, but this is just too far. I don't care how good you think you are - you CANNOT accurately target a maneuvering fighter in this circumstance. We tried - alot - over and over again - with multiple gunners all of whom are experience computer game junkies. It _ does _ not _ work.

If these ships are going to be of any value whatsoever / able to defend themselves at all, turret motion must be controlled by the operator independently of the motion of the ship. The motion of the ship should have absolutely no effect upon the direction a turret is pointing unless and until the necessary rotation of the turret would exceed the maximum range of rotation for the turret.

Don't tell me the pilot just needs to maneuver less - we tried that too. Any of you want to pay for the repairs? Didn't think so. Space combat is all about NOT getting hit much - sitting still, going slow, and not turning much are basically equivalent to planting a homing beacon on your hull to attract any incoming weapons fire. You do it, you die - doesn't matter how tough your shields and armor are.

Moreover, it's pretty much common sense that turrets should work that way. Modern tank turrets, gun turrets on warships, and even nose cannons on attack helicopters ALREADY work that way and work VERY WELL with 20th century technology. Why in the heavens would MUCH MORE ADVANCED space-faring civilizations not do so?

Sadly, until this change happens my guild at least will be having no further MPS combat outings. It's just no fun spending millions outfitting a ship and loading up half a dozen people on board to man various stations only to get massacred by the first tier-4 fighter that happens by. And PvP? You're not even a little funny.

its probably just a bug or a glitch, theyll fix it, something as big as this wont go unnoticed for long

For exactly the reason you state I suspect they are working as intended right now - it's just too big a deal to have been simply overlooked. I suspect it's just something that needed some feedback - they figured why put the extra code in if they might work fine without it (no way to tell until you get into "real" situations and see how it goes). Hence this thread - aforementioned feedback

IT NO WORKY - NEEDUM MORE CODE!

About the only thing we had any luck with was letting the Nova pilot AND turrets focus on a single target that we would dive straight towards with maximum fire on target and let the fighter escort attack anything that got on our tail. That at least got something done, but if that's all turrets are good for why bother with turrets at all? Would work better to just add 2 pilot-controlled guns and be done with it.

The difference between a Nova and Y-Wing is huge Valcyn. Getting a little "lead on target" now and then with your rear turret is a dandy bonus when you're flying a fighter that's getting it done on the front end AND maneuvering well anyway. But MPS ships have NO maneuverability whatsoever so the main weaponry is mostly ineffective against anything but capital ships. That means against fighters almost all of the damage has to get done by the turrets, and the pilot has to be maneuvering his brains out just to try and stay alive a few seconds. Trying to single-handedly take out a fighter that is moving independent of the Nova (and MUCH faster I might add) while the Nova is moving all over the place to try and keep from getting tore up is an entirely different matter than operating a tailgun on a fighter. Give it a try, you'll see my point.

I say keep the targeting as-is, but let us craft shield generators with 10x the hitpoints of current ones strictly for multiplayer ships. Sitting still would be fine if we actually had the shielding to pull it off for more than 3 seconds.

As I stated above, the current implementation does NOT reflect reality. Turret based weapons on EVERY modern fighting system mankind has created have already made the leap I'm talking about.

For instance, the M1 (all variants) main battle tank used by US forces is just such a system. The driver, located in the body of the tank, directs where the tank goes, how fast, etc. The captain, located in the turret, controls the turret and decides where it points. When the tank turns, goes up a hill, etc - THE TURRET REMAINS POINTED WHERE THE CAPTAIN IS LOOKING! The on-board computers automatically reposition the turret in real-time to compensate for the movement of the tank so that the captain can accurately acquire and destroy targets while the driver maneuvers the tank as required - the two systems operate as if independent of each other! Now of course, if the tank pitches up or down so heavily that the turret simply cannot be pointed at the target then it cannot make the necessary adjustments and the captain looses the ability to hit that target. But within the valid range of motion of the turret that turret is ROCK SOLID locked to the targetting position of the captain - not the motion of the tank. That's why US forces KICKED THE CRAP out of Iraqi forces in the tank battles that occurred in the first Gulf War (not starting a politics discussion, just noting historical fact) - our tanks could accurately engage enemies at range while maneuvering and their tanks had to stop to be able to hit anything.

The M1 is just one real-world example of this technology. Gun batteries on naval ships also work this way and have since around WWII! If they didn't you'd never be able to hit ANYTHING more than 100 feet away with the rocking of the sea. And as I noted, several modern attack helicopters use a similar technology to link the position of the nose-cannon to the position of the gunners head REGARDLESS of changes in helicopter attitude so that he/she can acquire and destroy targets while the pilot maneuvers and evades.

The point here is obvious. The divorcing of turret batteries from vehicle motion isn't some far-fetched spaced out concept - it's how ALL TURRETS REALLY WORK. Back in WWII they used gyroscopes - which helped quite a bit but were far from perfect. Modern systems use things like laser-designators and GPS systems to achieve FREAKISHLY perfect targetting stability. The very suggestion that a turret on a hyperspace-capable spacefighter isn't capable of achieving this rather obvious and necessary step is just ludicrous.

You just missed *the* biggest, best, and most relevant example: WWII bombers. These had turrets. Many turrets, often. Turrets that did *not* automatically adjust to compensate for the host bomber's maneuvering. Why do I bring this up? Because Lucas envisioned space combat in Star Wars to behave and play out much like aerial combat in the Second World War. In that respect, turrets most definately should not be self-correcting.

In JtL, multipassenger ships are effectively the heavy bombers of WWII. They aren't supposed to outmaneuver fighters. They're supposed to outgun them while being able to sustain enough damage to still survive the encounter.

Now, I'm not trying to say that the system may not need some tweaking, but I am most definitely says that turrents _should_not_ correct their position independantly of the ship they're on.

Heh - actually I set you up HOPING you would bring up WWII bombers. Thank you.

Look around at the bombers that existed in WWII and then look at the bombers that existed when Lucas wrote SW. Notice a difference? THERE ARE NO TURRETS ON THE NEWER BOMBERS! Wanna know why?

As I said above, in WWII turrets used gyroscopes to stabilize their motion relative to the motion of the vehicle they were in. Such gyroscopes were VERY HEAVY. So while they were doable for very large, massive ocean ships they COULD NOT be built into turrets in aircraft. Believe me when I say that they tried - HARD - to figure out a way to make it work. But they couldn't. The net effect was that the turrets on bombers (and even some fighters that had them similar to the Y-Wing) were USELESS and they eventually gave up and stopped making them. Not only was it nearly impossible to hit ANYTHING but the guy in the turret was almost always the first person to die so before long the crew stopped even bothering to man the things - after that they were just decorative.

Now, for the most part, bombers operate either in stealth or at standoff range such that turrets are unnecessary, but IF we still made bombers designed to be engaged by the enemy then you can bet your rear end they would have turrets on them and those turrets would be targetted independently of the motion of the aircraft (and be much more effective). If you doubt this, look at the two remaining examples I am aware of where aircraft have turrets. The first, attack helicopters, I have already addressed and as stated these DO use stabilized turrets. The second is called an AC-130 gunship - basically a C-130 stuffed full of cannons and machine guns all pointed out of one side that flys circular patterns around a target straffing the crap out of it. Guess what - ALL THOSE TURRETS ARE STABILIZED AND CAN BE TARGETED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PLANE'S MOTION.

Come on now - the point here is as plain as the noses on both our faces. You can't really still believe that the MPS in this game shouldn't have stabilized turrets?