problems with beam sweeping?

[Puke]

my favorite point defense weapon is the SQP, because its always on and it moves pretty quickly. Other beam weapons are good for this too, but I have noticed some problems. Maybe its a feature, im not sure.

when a (targetable) projectile runs into a beam, it dies. reliably. when the beam is pointed straight at a projectile (and is on target) the projectile dies. but when a beam is swept across a projectile, sometimes the projectile gets through.

This is especially true with submunitions from a multi-missile-launcher. those little mini-missiles seem to always slip through the cracks when i sweep a beam over them. I can wipe a SQP beam or a Tac-ray over them several times, and only shoot down one or two.

I can think of several metagame reasons why this might be intended behavior. the same reasons that beams are not flagged as point defense weapons: theyre not designed to target things that small, space is 3 dimensional and missiles are hard to hit when a beam is moving rapidly, etc, etc.

of course, if beams were SUPPOSED to hit missiles and submunitions when they are being swept around, then I thought I'd bring it up.

also, in a semi-related inquiry, would it be possible for an item to add a flag to other items? for example, a targeting computer that added the point defense ability to certain weapons? perhaps certain weapons could be point defense capable, but it would require the presense of another component to activate the ability?

[Flashfire]

How are you "beam sweeping" mine just fire on their own at what they want to fire at?

[Shadowcat]

Bring up the combat context menu (NOT on a ship). Select "fire". Pause the game. Move the mouse. Select "fire" again.

[ZylonBane]

That sounds utterly tedious, bordering on "exploit" territory.

[Shadowcat]

In that case, just have someone constantly spray ahead of the target area with a Micrometeorite Gun. That's usually pretty effective, and is basically a fire-and-forget solution if you are standing back and pounding with long-range weaponry...

[Fingers]

Yes, using the fire command to do point defense is essentially an exploit. I thought about removing it from the game when we put in the auto-repair of disabled thrusters (the fire command was originally added to help if you got stuck with a disabled deep hunter)... but it might've caused a mutiny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[TaoLibra]

Well, technically, issuing commands while Paused is a pseudo-exploit too, isn't it?

Not that I care. I figure the enemy is being run by the computer, which has the advantage of instantaneous commands to all of its ships; so issuing commands to all of my ships while Paused only levels the playing field.

[Graeme Dice]

TaoLibra said:
Not that I care. I figure the enemy is being run by the computer, which has the advantage of instantaneous commands to all of its ships; so issuing commands to all of my ships while Paused only levels the playing field.



It's not that you are issuing commands while paused, it's that you are using the beam weapons to act as point defense.

[TaoLibra]

Graeme Dice said:
It's not that you are issuing commands while paused, it's that you are using the beam weapons to act as point defense.



Yes, thank you: I understood what was being said. I mentioned issuing commands while paused as an example of another kind of "exploit" that I consider similar, the difference being that it's less likely to be called an "exploit."

I don't see anything at all wrong with using beam weapons for point defense. In fact, it's far more plausible to destroy a projectile with a beam than to use one projectile to strike another, since beams have (comparatively) no travel time. In the Real World, the most advanced anti-projectile toy that anybody has is not a projectile but a laser — the MTHEL (Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser) (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_MTHEL,,00.html), which is capable of destroying not only missiles, but even artillery shells in flight.

So I really don't care if using beam weapons as point defense is an "exploit." It should be permissible anyway, as it makes more sense.

[Prometheus]

I've modded myself a dedicated laser point defence, however, it only works well if you have a decent targetting computer.
Its a shame that you can't mod weapons to always be good without a targetting computer,

[Phoenix-D]

The problem isn't that per se, but the fact that you're using anti-ship beam weapons. Sort of like using the 16' guns on an Iowa battleship to shoot down a cruise missile. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[TaoLibra]

Phoenix-D said:
The problem isn't that per se, but the fact that you're using anti-ship beam weapons. Sort of like using the 16' guns on an Iowa battleship to shoot down a cruise missile. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



In that sense you're quite right, beams are most often better used on larger targets; and the problem is similar to the way Multi-Missiles would be wasted chasing fighters in SAIS. That problem was elegantly solved in WW by adding a flag that tells weapons not to fire at fighters.

One all-encompassing solution might be to add a small context menu to the ships' weapon slots, allowing the Player to choose CUSTOM targeting priorities for each weapon as they desire — limited by the weapon type, of course. We might call a Neptunium Railgun a "CFM" weapon, because it can fire at Capital ships, Fighters, and Missiles; and the hardpoint's context menu would allow the Player to choose what order those letters go in, to indicate priority.

A Tachyon Ray Gun would be a "CF," with only two possibilities in its context menu. A Multi-Missile Launcher is a "C" weapon with no choice to make; while at the other end of the spectrum, there could be "M" weapons designed solely for point defense.

If adding such a custom "Turret Targeting Priority" menu for every hardpoint is too difficult to implement, then perhaps the same range of options could be available for each ship. Failing that, surely it could at least be built into the weapons themselves.

I'd rather have the ability to dictate it myself, though — by the hardpoint, and on the fly.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Puke]

customizeable (in game) fireing priorities may eliminate the need for manual targeting.

presently, i dont think combat would be very exciting if you couldnt aim your weapons, fire at things on the edge of your range, use "recon by fire" to look for cloaked ships, and all the rest.

Yes, it gives the human an advantage. but it enables challenging battles against ships that outclass you. and it gives you more to DO in a fight. otherwise, you might as well just set your formation and let ships engage automatically. sit back and watch the show. Its a nice show to watch, but not very engaging.

[ZylonBane]

I thought that's what the devs intended anyway, since they removed the ability to easily monitor the shield and hull status of all your ships during combat.