Improved Beam Functionality

[nichaey]

It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.

Actually it isn't the computer that takes up space in fire control. It's the detectors. Bigger generally means better, especially with widely separated arrays on the same vessel.

If the fire control has the detectors, why do we need active sensor lock? (sorry for the off topicness)

Believed balance change:
would make it possible to bombard an capture planets without making dust or fallout
My thoughts:
I'm not sure that there should be such a consequence free way of exterminating all of the inhabitants of a planet. (especially from such a long distance)

And what the veteran players keep trying to point out (among other things) is:

A)  One of Steve's prime goals in the game was to avoid the GFFP strategy from Starfire (I leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out what GFFP stands for).  It is intentional that it is very difficult to kill populations without wrecking the planet.

B)  Beam weapons don't penetrate atmosphere (or do so at a degraded level for low pressure worlds), so the primary stationary target that you want to shoot at won't take any damage from the super-luminal lasers, which pretty much knocks out the game-play argument.

As Charlie points out, "Steve's games, Steve's rules".  You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't go into the code unless the idea grabs Steve's fancy, and the suggestion goes against his previously stated opinions.

One more thing to consider: just because it can be put in the game, doesn't mean that it should be.  As Waresky often points out, Steve is a limited resource , and we want him working on high-value enhancements like gunboats and fighters (neither of which were in the original game).

John

Did you even read my full last post? I more or less said that I did not like long range lasers towards planets because of GFFP. My reservation was partially refuted by your reminder that lasers cannot penetrate atmosphere, yet you try to use that to argue in the other direction.

(note that I don't necessarily believe that either should be implemented, just discussed and fleshed out)

Please, this thread is for constructive criticism and discussion on a specific topic. This is a suggestion board, not a demands board. So stop being so defensive.

I know this might seem like a reiteration of a rejected idea, but when new ideas are presented it becomes a reexamination.
 [rant]

It is known that Steve will not put things in the game if
A. He does not like it
B. It will make the game less fun
C. He has not thought of it

This thread made a suggestion to deal with C. I and others are trying improve the idea. If Steve likes any of it, he might use it.

I am not demanding anything just trying to make a constructive discussion by presenting arguments that I believe to be relevant.

Please try to remain constructive in suggestion threads. I know the thought of change is scary, but I believe in the veterans(sorry to any veterans who were spoken for).

last and most certainly least Steve puts in what Steve wants to put in, Vets don't have Veto rights so stop pretending you do, Steve will speak for Steve, Steve will like what Steve likes  STEVE  Steve Steve Steeeeeeeeeve [/rant]

[nichaey]

Any particular reason why Steve does not like FTL lasers?
.

An FTL Laser is somewhat internally contradictory. Realism flies off and dies of relativistic shock at the concept.

Fine then, FTL beam, it's trans-newtonian you know

[dooots]

Let say you get this change what will you gain?

You can shoot OWP with lasers, mesons, or HPM from long range.  This gives you almost no benefit, if the OWP is using missiles it will still be able to shoot at you long before you could shoot at it.  If it is using beams, use high speed ships to reduce its chance of hitting you.  If you have your heart set on huge slow ships then just wait until you have enough to win, it's not like the OWP is going any place.

You gain a very small chance of hitting moving ships.  This alone would probably get the range of mesons and HPM nerfed.  As for lasers a maxed out laser does 14 points of damage at 1.4 mkm and has a max rof of 35 seconds.  And to make it worse since they are moving the ships odds are the only thing you will be shooting at is other beam armed ships that are heavily armored.  So even if you do get lucky and hit and by this point your enemy doesn't have shields you do probably less the 10 points of damage to there 50+ layers of armor.  Congrats you hit them with a pea are  you happy now?

Would it be neat to just open fire? sure. Do you gain anything from it? not really.

Edit- One thing I did just realize is this change would make it so no one builds OWP's as PDC's would be immune to the long range beam weapons.

[welchbloke]

It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.

This seems to be a common misconception regarding modern FC systems.  The computer used to support a modern FC system,particulaly one which has a missile defence role, has to make several milion complex computations in a short period of time, sometimes as little as a couple of secs.  MD radars tend to have several Blade server equivalents to provide the necessary computational power.  Now it can be argued that TN materials will lead to a reduction in size; however, the computations required to hit a ship/missile moving at a measurable percentage of the speed of light would probably lead to the same overall relationship between computing power and difficulty.  

Actually it isn't the computer that takes up space in fire control. It's the detectors. Bigger generally means better, especially with widely separated arrays on the same vessel.
If the fire control has the detectors, why do we need active sensor lock? (sorry for the off topicness)

Steve has used the system used by most air defence radar systems as his model.  Apart from one or 2 more modern exceptions most AD radar systems have a search radar (long range, moderate to low update rate, plus large volume search capabillity) that detects the target.  Once detected a target track radar (high power, low volume coverage plus very high update rate - normally in a completely different frequency range to the search radar) actually provides the target data to the missile in flight not the search radar.  If the target breaks the lock, the search radar has to find the target to cue the target track radar again.  The really modern system still use the methodology used above, the difference is that they use the same array to generate different waveforms to replicate the search and target track functionality.

[Charlie Beeler]

Please try to remain constructive in suggestion threads. I know the thought of change is scary, but I believe in the veterans(sorry to any veterans who were spoken for).

last and most certainly least Steve puts in what Steve wants to put in, Vets don't have Veto rights so stop pretending you do, Steve will speak for Steve, Steve will like what Steve likes  STEVE  Steve Steve Steeeeeeeeeve [/rant]

And this is an excellent example that your not getting the point.  This is ground that has been cover ad infinitum in the past and that so far nothing new has been suggested.  

The bigger point your missing is that since multiple veterans are telling you this the odds are really good that we know what we're talking about because we've already had this discussion, when the game was being formed, and have a working idea of what Steve is likely to consider.  Call it the "been there, done that" factor.

Here are some criteria that Steve stated many times are hard and fast rules for Aurora:
1) Beam weapons may not exeed the speed of light.
2) Beam weapons max range is limited to 5 light seconds, the minimum time increment within the game.
3) Atmospheric density of 1 blocks beam weapons with the exception of meson cannons.
4) Planetary bombardment creates atmospheric dust (ie cools the surface) and radiation.  Both have segnificant negative impacts of populations.  

So you see, this is not veteran players trying to exercise veto powers.  It's veteran players pointing out that the suggestion(s) violates one or more foundation rules for the Aurora enviroment.  We've also pointed out that if a well thought out and detailed idea that violates any of these preset rules intelligent discussion will follow.

[wilddog5]

For the beam weapon not being FTL is a good thing (Lasers ect)

my sugestion to this whole idea is a tacyon cannon as tacyons are naturaly FTL it would be ok (possibly)

It could have all of the fire control range but say half the damage of lasers or it only does 1 damage like the mession but affects shields and armor like the laser

laser and particle beam techs could be requires the start this field of research, starting somewhare in the mid level (30cm laser strength 9 particle beam area) to represent the way that tacyons could be a blend of the two areas

[sloanjh]

my sugestion to this whole idea is a tacyon cannon as tacyons are naturaly FTL it would be ok (possibly)

Two things:

1)  See Charlie's rule #1 above (no FTL beam weapons, not just lasers).  This also goes to the game-play "why is this an improvement - all it does is make beam weapons longer-ranged" and "just because one can do it doesn't mean one should" issues.

2*)  The possibility of Tachyon Cannon would be a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad thing.  [RealWorldPhysics] This is because if a tachyonic particle existed, then it would mean that the vacuum is unstable and any tiny little thing could set off a phase transition into a new vacuum state where we probably wouldn't be able to exist.  This would be A Bad Thing :-) [/RealWorldPhysics]

John

* - Pointing out this little tidbit is the real reason I wanted to make this post - it was just too tempting to pass up

[Erik L]

I'm locking this since it seems to be headed towards a flamefest.