Low-Profile Turrets

[Code24]

One thing thing I noticed is that the released models of turrets, have a high profile, which I know from space engineers can look awkward on ship designs.

 

Assuming we can't customize our own turrets to be low profile. I would like to see a turret model that will be easier to fit snugly to a ships hull like this:

 

(Image Credit)

[Anaximander]

Sure, for a lower power/caliber model, a smaller turret model should be appropriate. I can't see "scaling" of turrets to be a thing, since they represent a destructive power. Plus, you wouldn't want your Ack-Ack (anti-air) turrets to look like pesky things, right?


And the model does look cool and sleek, but the devs might aim for a cash-shop cosmetic change for turrets. It's not pay-to-win and is a way for them to provide more customisation options.

[Code24]

Sure, for a lower power/caliber model, a smaller turret model should be appropriate. I can't see "scaling" of turrets to be a thing, since they represent a destructive power. Plus, you wouldn't want your Ack-Ack (anti-air) turrets to look like pesky things, right?

 

And the model does look cool and sleek, but the devs might aim for a cash-shop cosmetic change for turrets. It's not pay-to-win and is a way for them to provide more customisation options.

 

I'd prefer the difference to be more than just cosmetic, and reflect the real-life purpose of a low profile turret. i.e. harder be targeted at the cost of it having less firing visibility.

[Anaximander]

I'd prefer the difference to be more than just cosmetic, and reflect the real-life purpose of a low profile turret. i.e. harder be targeted at the cost of it having less firing visibility.

Once more, the problem arises from the fact you can't have e.g. a 50 caliber sniper rifle, without a 50 caliber barrel, 50 cal receiver or a 50 caliber rifle stock, cause, you know, you need the shoulder and all that.

 

If you are talking about scales of turrets, then sure, that's a logical thing. Instead of a two-barrel turret with 360 degrees of rotation, 1 barrel turret, with less of a rotation, make it 180 for example. Those two things don't have the same utility or impact, but still have the same damage model, yet one is halfed (or even more) due to its size.

 

 

But in no case should there be a cheap trick to lessen exposure to your enemies. That should be a priority of the ship builders to use armor plating and slots on it to expose the turrets as less as possible. It should not be a "lessen the mesh" trick which arbitrary, and to be honest, cheap. It should be something organic that indcates you know your stuff on your ship and what its weaknesses are

 

As I said, yes, having different sizes of turrets on the same category is absolutelly brilliant idea, having a "Scale size" option, not so much. One of them creates intriguing logistics gameplay, the other... just a trick.

[Archer]

The main tradeoff for a low profile model would be elevation.  Positive elevation can be helped if the rear portion of the gun is allowed to drop in to a recess in the hull when aiming high.  Negative elevation can't really be helped without having a higher profile.  Tanks have to deal with this tradeoff; a higher profile design gives better negative elevation so they are better able to fire while hiding the hull behind a shallow hill while a lower profile design presents a smaller target while mobile.  In either case the turret can have full 360 degree horizontal rotation* regardless of height as long as there aren't any other structures on the ship that block a firing direction.

 

*Sometimes internal mechanisms have trouble dealing with full 360 degree rotation, such as cables or ammo conveyors, but these issues aren't related to turret profile and probably won't show up ingame.

[Anaximander]

The main tradeoff for a low profile model would be elevation.  Positive elevation can be helped if the rear portion of the gun is allowed to drop in to a recess in the hull when aiming high.  Negative elevation can't really be helped without having a higher profile.  Tanks have to deal with this tradeoff; a higher profile design gives better negative elevation so they are better able to fire while hiding the hull behind a shallow hill while a lower profile design presents a smaller target while mobile.  In either case the turret can have full 360 degree horizontal rotation* regardless of height as long as there aren't any other structures on the ship that block a firing direction.

 

*Sometimes internal mechanisms have trouble dealing with full 360 degree rotation, such as cables or ammo conveyors, but these issues aren't related to turret profile and probably won't show up ingame.

I believe the devs have a sci-fi wibbly-wabbly explanation on a function "spin to win" turret Their Resurrection Nodes manipulate quantum probabilities to save you from "death", so I can't see magical magnetically attached turret being fed through another, multi-partial feeding mechanism that keeps up with the rotational aspect. 

 

Still, valid point on the elevation part. You could even make retractable hatches that the turrets pop out off on a firing run with an enemy ship.

[Darius Sanguna]

Maybe foldable/retractable turrets could also be a possibility, so in their inactive mode they would have a low profile fit near or maybe even partially in the hull and in active mode high profile for a maximal field of fire.

[ShadowLordAlpha]

Maybe foldable/retractable turrets could also be a possibility, so in their inactive mode they would have a low profile fit near or maybe even partially in the hull and in active mode high profile for a maximal field of fire.

Maybe even ones that rotate so you can't see the gun when its away and flips into position when needed

[Vyz Ejstu]

Maybe foldable/retractable turrets could also be a possibility, so in their inactive mode they would have a low profile fit near or maybe even partially in the hull and in active mode high profile for a maximal field of fire.

"This is a good idea, but, depending on how quickly I need the gun to fire at a target--not so much. I don't see the use of having a hidden weapon that takes 2 seconds to rotate, find the target, lock on and fire. Again, depending on the number of slots the DPU has, it may be fast enough to save my skin. I hope your idea is possible, though. It would help preserve sleek and clean ship designs -- broken only by the need to defend or attack. Cheers.

Pax Vobiscum.

"

[Anaximander]

"This is a good idea, but, depending on how quickly I need the gun to fire at a target--not so much. I don't see the use of having a hidden weapon that takes 2 seconds to rotate, find the target, lock on and fire. Again, depending on the number of slots the DPU has, it may be fast enough to save my skin. I hope your idea is possible, though. It would help preserve sleek and clean ship designs -- broken only by the need to defend or attack. Cheers.

Pax Vobiscum.

"

The problem is, Great Veteran of many A EVE Battles and (probably) Veteran of B-R5RB, the game goes for a partial destruction system and the weapons operate in a cone of fire/target/lock-on. Meaning, if a guy "paints" your turrets in his CoF, then he can destroy them out-right if you don't got them in SOME sort of protecting cover, meaning armor, meaning slotted armor plating, meaning turrets will need to be able to pop, fire, then pop back in on a firing run. There will be need for turrets to be kept in low exposure to not be destroyed on the first clash of two ships. Maybe some of them on one battery of turrets will be destroyed, sure, but it beats all of them. And before anyone here says anything about that, go check on the Multicrew, they do go for that kind of gameplay of destuction on parts of the ship, I just happen to have enough knowledge of video games, how they work to tell what they aim for at this point. And no, a target lock-on system is not a tab-targeting system, it's a tab-targeting system with actual effort put in rather than a "point and click" adventure.

 

 

While I can see many EVE players do find Dual interesting, you guys must understand that EVE came out on 2001. It's been 15 years, let Tab-Targeting and Slug-fests go. Let the way of Dual begin

[Vyz Ejstu]

The problem is, Great Veteran of many A EVE Battles and (probably) Veteran of B-R5RB, the game goes for a partial destruction system and the weapons operate in a cone of fire/target/lock-on. Meaning, if a guy "paints" your turrets in his CoF, then he can destroy them out-right if you don't got them in SOME sort of protecting cover, meaning armor, meaning slotted armor plating, meaning turrets will need to be able to pop, fire, then pop back in on a firing run. There will be need for turrets to be kept in low exposure to not be destroyed on the first clash of two ships. Maybe some of them on one battery of turrets will be destroyed, sure, but it beats all of them. And before anyone here says anything about that, go check on the Multicrew, they do go for that kind of gameplay of destuction on parts of the ship, I just happen to have enough knowledge of video games, how they work to tell what they aim for at this point. And no, a target lock-on system is not a tab-targeting system, it's a tab-targeting system with actual effort put in rather than a "point and click" adventure.

 

 

While I can see many EVE players do find Dual interesting, you guys must understand that EVE came out on 2001. It's been 15 years, let Tab-Targeting and Slug-fests go. Let the way of Dual begin

"Agreed.

Pax Vobiscum."

[Code24]

Maybe foldable/retractable turrets could also be a possibility, so in their inactive mode they would have a low profile fit near or maybe even partially in the hull and in active mode high profile for a maximal field of fire.

 

I like it. The inactive mode could also use less energy. Maybe make it like Elite Dangerous, so that they need to be retracted before FTL travel.