Debate 1: Potential Weapons & Classes

[Wilks Checkov]

Have yet to see a generalized topic on this subject, so I figured I would compose something and then place it up for debate to see what you all think on the subject matter.

 

There are several different ways weapons as I see can go in Dual Universe, and when your basing it off RND otherwise known as Research and Development, it may go something like this as you progress throughout the game.

{Anything here is subject to change, and or new ideas}

 

Base Game Starting Weapons:

• Auto Cannons - High rate of fire, low damage, decent against fighter defense or other assorted light or unarmored ships.
• Artillery - Long range, slow to mid fire rate weapon that deals fairly heavy damage against mid to large size targets.
• Dumb-Fire Rockets - Line of sight rocket for fast assault frigates or fighters & bombers against mid to large size targets.
• Short Range Cruise Missiles - Mid to Long range heavy damage weapon with some target acquisition and tracking abilities. 
• Low yield Nukes - Heavy damage weapon just meant to obliterate targets, or demoralize the enemy. Maybe even use in instances of planetary bombardment?
• Flak Cannons - Low damage - Very high rate of fire - for protection against Rocket, Cruise, and Nukes.

 

Then as you progress throughout the game then you may start being able to access research opportunities like this. . .

 

Mid Game Weapons:

• Rail gun - Long range heavy damage weapon with armor piercing capability - requires massive power output to use effectively.
• Emp Bomb - Pulse weapon to disable or destroy un-shielded electronics and other assorted ship / station systems.
• Pulse Cannon - Early stage energy weapon, uses fairly large amounts of power to fire off a mid range damage projectile of energized matter. Capable of chewing through armor with ease.

 

Now as you start understanding technology far better, this is where the "Interesting" weapons that will scare the hell out of you come into play.

 

End Game Weapons:

• Beam Cannon - Late stage energy weapon that uses insanely massive amounts of power, fires continuous stream of energized matter {plasma ?} that is capable of obliterating armored targets. Knife to butter anyone?
• ? Other ?

 

For all of the weapons no matter when they are researched they should have different tiers of each, meaning a higher tier rail gun for instance would still be viable later game while facing off against energy weapons. The only difference is to achieve the higher tier weaponry for the older tech would require significantly more research to keep it effective. 

 

 

Now there are things I have certainly forgotten to add to this list. If you have any ideas feel free to tack them on below. As well let us know what you think of these weapon choices, after all your opinions matter, especially if you want to see some of these weapons in-game, as a lot of us definitely would.

 

 

As for the {Debates} topics, I will be trying to write one a day for the considerable future, so stay tuned to see what I might bring up next. 

 

 

 

Feedback is appreciated... so click that like button!

[Anaximander]

Projectiles will not be treated like a physical entity in the server-side, so you couldn't be able to itntercept them with a weaponry system. The rest of  the weapons are fair-game, although the "nukes" can be scaled to simple missiles, because of the devs strong belief on not including weapons of mass destruction. Although a fracture cannon, ala 1700s ships firing bolas towards enemy vessels to take out the mast can be used in a space scenario as a close-range, good ol' buckshot. Because shotgun rain is the best rain, no?


A laser is either a poweful lamp or a fission based high power x-ray machine, with fusion possibly working as literal beam cannon for sustained dmg. Pulse on the other hand, is like a flickering lamp, consider it the carbine of the laser weaponry if you will. Good for medium range engagements, but it takes triger discipline,(sorta). Every other weapon ,fair game.



A certain weapon type, should have, in my opinion, a different specialisation in it. A beam weapon should require precision training, making you the "top gunner" on a vessel, while a turret battery, should require a "Weapon Systems' Watch" type of specialisation to arrange fire groups accorindgly. And yes, Such classes or specialisations, would have access to medium cooldown sklls, like "Eucledian Method" for a ballistics turret operator, to increase the potential effective range of a weapon, or "Trigger Discipline" for a pulse cannon specialist, that gives him less accuracy loss per shot fired. The possibilitiees are endless, not to mention each specialist gets "better" at handling their wepaon through passive effects as they specialise, decreasing cone of fire or accuracy loss per shot on their respective specialised weaponry. That would create, in my opinion, a bridge that requires at least 5 people in it for the whole battleship to work properly, engineering watch doesn't count, as they are not in the bridge, no matter how many lies Star Trek may told us


Hope I helped out a bit.


My opinion on this debate? There should be two weapon damage models, energy and ballistic, with plasma being a hybrid of both.  A missile would still count a a short, area of effect "spell" in a fantasy MMO, where the point on the point of impact it applies an area of effect damage number, possibly even being rigged to open holes on a ship's hull, BUT, missiles should be limited in number, like bullets. So should laser have a cooldown timer, or ballistic turrets having a reload timer associated with them. No matter of weaponry should be "super-effective" or "end-game tier". All should have pros and cons. 


Like, a plasma cannon. Now, a projectile based plasma cannon and not a particle cannon, would fire a slub of iron that carries the plasma payload onto the target, AKA, a glorified Grenade Launcher. That would be a POWERFUL hit, a literal sucker punch at close distance, BUT, it should require the cannon to have a cooldown timer and a reload timer after that (for obvious reasons ). 


A Beam Cannon, or Ray-Gun or w/e the devs may end up calling it, would have a sustained damage model, possibly from a greater enagement range than most weaponry, but it would be like a literal laser-hose, pumping electrons as an insane volume, which, you've guessed it, should leave the cannon overheated after a while, with a specialisation giving it a longer time to overheat, possibly, I don't know.


Which is my arguement on the whole subject. Those weapons should be deemed "unplayable" by early level characters, due to their lack of specialisation, or end game characters due to specialising into another field. After all, a marine is a marine, he knows how to snipe or defuse bombs, but he ain't no ship driver, or navigator.


So, let's just not go with "Early, Mid, End-game" weaponry types, but a generalisation of weapons that need you to sink in time in training FOR them.


Peace.

[Wilks Checkov]

Must agree with your assessment of plasma based weaponry - they are a hybrid - since they are firing off a object that does have mass but also performs energy damage as well. 

 

 

Nukes when done right - and by nuke I am not talking about the 100-200 megaton range most sci-fi people think about that is just too op as hell. Nukes in space are not as powerful as they are on the ground. What makes a nuke have real force on a planet is the pressure wave it pushes around it as it expands rapidly. In space since there is no oxygen there would be no massive kill zone. It would only be limited to the high damage epicenter around the point of detonation from the rapidly expanding force of matter. 

 

In space it is would have a limited AOE range to it no matter what - as that zone of high heat would be comparable to the surface of the sun for a brief period of time, smaller ships caught in it for instance fighters or unarmored targets would quite essentially, evaporate. Only leaving the stronger armored ships standing, even then the closer they are to the epicenter of the explosion the more surface damage they would have. 

 

As I see it in space a nuke would have the best effect as to wipe out turrets or other critical equipment on the surface of several ships at once - maybe not destroying them outright, especially if they are armored enough, but as to wipe out radar, communication equipment, turrets, and other assorted mission critical tech. 

[Anaximander]

Must agree with your assessment of plasma based weaponry - they are a hybrid - since they are firing off a object that does have mass but also performs energy damage as well. 

 

 

Nukes when done right - and by nuke I am not talking about the 100-200 megaton range most sci-fi people think about that is just too op as hell. Nukes in space are not as powerful as they are on the ground. What makes a nuke have real force on a planet is the pressure wave it pushes around it as it expands rapidly. In space since there is no oxygen there would be no massive kill zone. It would only be limited to the high damage epicenter around the point of detonation from the rapidly expanding force of matter. 

 

In space it is would have a limited AOE range to it no matter what - as that zone of high heat would be comparable to the surface of the sun for a brief period of time, smaller ships caught in it for instance fighters or unarmored targets would quite essentially, evaporate. Only leaving the stronger armored ships standing, even then the closer they are to the epicenter of the explosion the more surface damage they would have. 

 

As I see it in space a nuke would have the best effect as to wipe out turrets or other critical equipment on the surface of several ships at once - maybe not destroying them outright, especially if they are armored enough, but as to wipe out radar, communication equipment, turrets, and other assorted mission critical tech. 

 

While that is a good point, you got to remember, that buildings on the ground, are also treated as constructs server-wise. A ship is just a construct with engines and all associated equipment tagged along. You could send a nuke on the ground as well, which I believe, the devs opted to leave them off the game in any way, shape or (let's face it) TNT tons of potential, to avoid Lil' Timmy griefing entire cities on the ground, since the game seems to follow laws of physics and having a nuke that won't demolish a city, but cracking turret batteires in half, would be, quite un-immersive for some people. In my humble opinion, it's the best for everyone. 

 

 

Although, your idea of nukes can be adapted for bombers. Special type of weaponry meant to latch on turrets and damage them directly, or w/e skill is associated with the Explosives kind of specialisation, which makes your bombs latch on different Elements or materials. Still, they would cause damage with precision and would be quite contained for any uses on the ground.

[Wilks Checkov]

Another concept I was thinking around with is simply making it illegal to fire a "nuke" at planets. Easy enough to do - although how to work it into the story is another question altogether. One that I do not have a answer to at this time. 

[Anaximander]

Another concept I was thinking around with is simply making it illegal to fire a "nuke" at planets. Easy enough to do - although how to work it into the story is another question altogether. One that I do not have a answer to at this time. 

Would be quite non-immersive, due to people being pirates, killing each other left and right. And let's face it, last thing we want is the Mittani getting his hands on in-game nukes. You know that truckytrucker is gonna come in the game. He's too much of a loser to not grief people in a game that allows nukes deployed on cities. How else will he start another 200,000 $ kickstarter on a book about how he imagined things happened?

[Wilks Checkov]

Cant wait for the game to open up - Plan on getting our corporate police force going to hunt down the bastards that do that and just plug em full of holes and send their twirling hulks venting atmosphere out into the void of space. Trolls and pirates deserve nothing less. . .

[Wilks Checkov]

Would be quite non-immersive, due to people being pirates, killing each other left and right. And let's face it, last thing we want is the Mittani getting his hands on in-game nukes. You know that truckytrucker is gonna come in the game. He's too much of a loser to not grief people in a game that allows nukes deployed on cities. How else will he start another 200,000 $ kickstarter on a book about how he imagined things happened?

Trust me I know a fair amount about Mittani - former Bomberwaffe / GSF member 

[Anaximander]

Trust me I know - #BomberWaffe member

I am not an EVE player, nor was ever, I just had a roommate at the Uni that piloted a Dreadnought on the CFC. But a member of the forum here, Cybrex, filled me in on the Mitten's cray-cray and did some research. The guy is a legit diva/clown hybrid. So, let's leave the nukes off the game. Bombs, sure, make them a super-explosive, like a nitrogen compound I can't pronounce, let alone type properly, and make the bombs behave by locking onto particular items or Elements, as the Devs call the 3D-Mesh objects in the game.

[Cybrex]

Well, let's just say nukes are allowed and are as destructive as has been discussed so far. The only way to make them illegal and have the law enforced, would be as Wilks is wanting to do - enforce it by players means. That said, I I am against nukes personally, but an alternative for bombers for anti-capital warfare would be interesting.

[Wilks Checkov]

I am not an EVE player, nor was ever, I just had a roommate at the Uni that piloted a Dreadnought on the CFC. But a member of the forum here, Cybrex, filled me in on the Mitten's cray-cray and did some research. The guy is a legit diva/clown hybrid. So, let's leave the nukes off the game. Bombs, sure, make them a super-explosive, like a nitrogen compound I can't pronounce, let alone type properly, and make the bombs behave by locking onto particular items or Elements, as the Devs call the 3D-Mesh objects in the game.

You may be thinking of Thermobaric - fuel air bombs? Next thing in line to a nuke in terms of sheer destructive prowess.  Only problem is they do not exactly work in space. Maybe as a planetary bombardment weapon perhaps?

[Wilks Checkov]

Well, let's just say nukes are allowed and are as destructive as has been discussed so far. The only way to make them illegal and have the law enforced, would be as Wilks is wanting to do - enforce it by players means. That said, I I am against nukes personally, but an alternative for bombers for anti-capital warfare would be interesting.

Have to agree - on massive and super massive targets they would be the most effective, especially if you could get one into a tight - enclosed space like a hangar or a trench. In places like that it would be most effective.

 

Also nukes if applied should have an effective counter measure - with the high ROF flak cannon - for dealing with missiles. 

[Anaximander]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azide


The most explosive thing on the planet, Azidoazide Azide. The thing can explode on its own, in vacuum. Probably somebody cuseed it and got pissed off, I don't know. This thing is so powerful, Pentagon went "yeah... that's like.... too powerful, let's go with somethng less dangerous". 


But, I just remmbered of Mass Drivers. Take a landline pole, make it out of iron, throw it from orbit down to a building. Yey for desctructive capabilities,. And it's technically a railgun. 
 

[Wilks Checkov]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azide

 

 

The most explosive thing on the planet, Azidoazide Azide. The thing can explode on its own, in vacuum. Probably somebody cuseed it and got pissed off, I don't know. This thing is so powerful, Pentagon went "yeah... that's like.... too powerful, let's go with somethng less dangerous". 

 

 

But, I just remmbered of Mass Drivers. Take a landline pole, make it out of iron, throw it from orbit down to a building. Yey for desctructive capabilities,. And it's technically a railgun. 

 

 

Rod from God - is what I know it by. Essentially a heavy metal rod about the size of an average telephone/power pole weighing in at about 4500kg dropped in atmosphere from orbit then gravity does the rest of the work drawing it towards its target. However in reality its not as powerful as films make it out, although it still will probably destroy about 6x6 average city blocks, what really counts is its punching power. It will dig itself deep into the ground on impact - essentially being a bunker buster. 

 

Now a Mass Driver is not the same thing to a rail gun - rail guns use magnetic forces to levitate a ferrous projectile out of the barrel at a high rate of speed. On the contrary a mass driver uses a controlled gravity field to force any form of object out at a high rate of speed. 

[Anaximander]

Rod from God - is what I know it by. Essentially a heavy metal rod about the size of an average telephone/power pole weighing in at about 4500kg dropped in atmosphere from orbit then gravity does the rest of the work drawing it towards its target. However in reality its not as powerful as films make it out, although it still will probably destroy about 6x6 average city blocks, what really counts is its punching power. It will dig itself deep into the ground on impact - essentially being a bunker buster. 

 

Now a Mass Driver is not the same thing to a rail gun - rail guns use magnetic forces to levitate a ferrous projectile out of the barrel at a high rate of speed. On the contrary a mass driver uses a controlled gravity field to force any form of object out at a high rate of speed. 

Oh, no , I meant it can be accelerated with through a rail-gun mechanism. Plus, that kind of ammunition will be, probably costly, making a situational weapon versus bunkers, like ones that control Ack-Ack turrets on the ground versus jet fighters. Plus, the weapon itself will be taking time to lock-on, due to the immense calculations being taken into account for it.

[AttacKat]

In space it is would have a limited AOE range to it no matter what - as that zone of high heat would be comparable to the surface of the sun for a brief period of time, smaller ships caught in it for instance fighters or unarmored targets would quite essentially, evaporate. Only leaving the stronger armored ships standing, even then the closer they are to the epicenter of the explosion the more surface damage they would have. 

 

As I see it in space a nuke would have the best effect as to wipe out turrets or other critical equipment on the surface of several ships at once - maybe not destroying them outright, especially if they are armored enough, but as to wipe out radar, communication equipment, turrets, and other assorted mission critical tech. 

 

Too OP and can easily be used as an "one man death squad" tactic during massive combat which takes out the fun of PvP.

[Wilks Checkov]

Too OP and can easily be used as an "one man death squad" tactic during massive combat which takes out the fun of PvP.

Hence why the use of Flak turrets would be necessary, as they easily defeat incoming missiles. Protecting you from the main missile barrage dps, the only thing to fear is when you have a hole in your defense screen - a few missing flak turrets, then you would become vulnerable to the nuke/missile fire. 

[Anaximander]

Hence why the use of Flak turrets would be necessary, as they easily defeat incoming missiles. Protecting you from the main missile barrage dps, the only thing to fear is when you have a hole in your defense screen - a few missing flak turrets, then you would become vulnerable to the nuke/missile fire. 

A skill could be in place, instead of flak turrets, like "Killswitch Signal" used by the cyber-warfare specialist, to kill the "counter" of the missiles registring damage on you, since the whole "animation" of them coming towards you is just a visual indicator so you can react.

[Wilks Checkov]

A skill could be in place, instead of flak turrets, like "Killswitch Signal" used by the cyber-warfare specialist, to kill the "counter" of the missiles registring damage on you, since the whole "animation" of them coming towards you is just a visual indicator so you can react.

I would also think an emp pulse would be highly effective against incoming missiles as well - potential Ewar aspect perhaps? Maybe even radar jamming? - 

[Anaximander]

I would also think an emp pulse would be highly effective against incoming missiles as well - potential Ewar aspect perhaps? Maybe even radar jamming? - 

That is a thing that the game can support. But, there's also a possible counter-play, like a DPU (the in-game CPU in a ship) can be set in a binary rig, so if one Radar DPU is jammed, another can be switched in its place to defeat the radar jam with simple click of the ship's captain. This is more in the aspect of shsip-building and it's a system only really powerful people could implement, due to all the little thing that go into LUA scripting in-game.

 

An EMP would work, but I can't say for sure due to the Devs using a sort of "lock on" mechanism for combat, which given the game engine, can support geometrical and telemetrical calculations for emulation of accuracy and damage consistency. Further details on a PM on that, I don't want to derail any topic (anymore that is).

[Wilks Checkov]

That is a thing that the game can support. But, there's also a possible counter-play, like a DPU (the in-game CPU in a ship) can be set in a binary rig, so if one Radar DPU is jammed, another can be switched in its place to defeat the radar jam with simple click of the ship's captain. This is more in the aspect of shsip-building and it's a system only really powerful people could implement, due to all the little thing that go into LUA scripting in-game.

 

An EMP would work, but I can't say for sure due to the Devs using a sort of "lock on" mechanism for combat, which given the game engine, can support geometrical and telemetrical calculations for emulation of accuracy and damage consistency. Further details on a PM on that, I don't want to derail any topic (anymore that is).

I just know for the first few times, there will be idiots that come across an Ewar capable ship thinking they have a easy target - only to find out they may have bitten off more than they can chew - so to say. I imagine that there will be two classes of ship based electronics. One being un-shielded the other being shielded. Un-shielded are vulnerable to even the simplest of systems, but they are significantly cheaper to produce, so would probably be used in mass on civilian and cheap military ships. Now the shielded variant of components would be significantly harder to disrupt. Making them fit to be used on larger fleet ships like frigates cruisers and other line ships. You must remember that a ship can be vulnerable to its on Ewar - especially if its an AOE. So fitting Ewar gear onto a un-prepped ship would be a recipe for disaster the first time you come into a conflict and shut yourself down as well as your opponent. 

[Anaximander]

I just know for the first few times, there will be idiots that come across an Ewar capable ship thinking they have a easy target - only to find out they may have bitten off more than they can chew - so to say. I imagine that there will be two classes of ship based electronics. One being un-shielded the other being shielded. Un-shielded are vulnerable to even the simplest of systems, but they are significantly cheaper to produce, so would probably be used in mass on civilian and cheap military ships. Now the shielded variant of components would be significantly harder to disrupt. Making them fit to be used on larger fleet ships like frigates cruisers and other line ships. You must remember that a ship can be vulnerable to its on Ewar - especially if its an AOE. So fitting Ewar gear onto a un-prepped ship would be a recipe for disaster the first time you come into a conflict and shut yourself down as well as your opponent. 

IMO, it's how we CSD guys set up networks for industrial compounds. One network goes out, but for cases of emergency, we set up a seconday subnet in the whole rig. Same idea can be applied on a ship, or is alreay applied on ships or planes, or political infrastructure, I am not sure.

 

 

But yeah, basically, the whole ship should be rigged on, as you put it, shielded and unshielded. Shielded would be a system not linked to external elements, for the case of cyber-warfare. The other will be the optimal system, running at all times, but not, i nthe case of a cyber-attack. Such ships would have to be, at least, a battleship. Things that SHOULD not go offline easily in combat, due to their capabilities.

 

 

Last thing you want is for a dreadnought to be "stunned", no?

[UniversalG]

i read classes and got a itch

[Wilks Checkov]

i read classes and got a itch

How so :?

[Anaximander]

i read classes and got a itch

You sick lad. Wouldn't you like to be the heavy assault guy, wreckin' scrubs with yo dakka-dakka machinegun?