That makes sense from a realistic point of view, but I feel we can't focus on reality to such and extent we forget about gameplay, we need some balancing work here.There is a great deal that needs attention to make the game not just cool, but playable both in single player and multi-player. Simple rocks are dangerous espessially against large stations, but not universal - hard to recharge, to target mobile targets, affected by gravity, high spread and can be affected by 'floating objects limit'/cleanup scripts.I agree with lostami that we need working point defense and missile balancing. But I imagine it in a bit different way.For example PD can be implemented as alternate type of rounds (completely universal weapons will be disbalancing). Missiles should be all of one size as well, but be separated into PD type (for example they blow up near enemy missiles and disable bunch of them simultaneously, same might work against rocks), unguided type (what we have now) and homing type (lower damage, homing, higher range).

Also presence of homing missiles means that small ships will require some kind of counter (or decoy) for missiles. I've always felt damage is way over the top in Space Engineers, missiles especially and doubly so when they are low power requirements, AI controlled turrets.We modders can actually make most of what you describe on the missile front, but of course there are no agreed standards to work to. Even between the build crowds there doesn't seem to be much of an agreement. Many survival players asking for modded weapons etc see only the materials costs as the balancing issue, whereas the creative crowd think little of the materials but rather size etc.The big problem is in fact Point Defence as the original poster said. I spend a LONG time trying to come up with a decent PD system but to no effect. My plan was to make an extremely high projectile speed and rate of fire at the expense of damage (i.e. It would do very little to players or ships).

Space Engineers. All Discussions. Defense Shields - v1.9(83) Subscribe. BaseScaler - This affects the max number of hit points the shield can hold per power point spent. 30 is the default value (whole numbers only), this value scales from 1 to some very large number =). Custom Point defence Cannon test Space engineers. Shadow Trace. Unsubscribe from Shadow.

The problem is even with a huge projectile speed, the turrets are lucky if they hit 1 in 4 from good angles. I agree, the defense turrets are simply NOT EFFECTIVE.The missile turrets are acceptable I think, from the perspective of slinging high damage at large+slow targets. They need to be better at leading the target.The gatlings are just not getting it done. They NEED to be better at leading the target.

They are not effective point defense, the bullets travel too slowly, easily run out of ammo by just dancing around in front of it for a while. And if you sling an armored torp bomb, they don't do enough damage to stop it. (assuming it's going slowly enough that they hit it).There's a million threads on here asking for laser point defense.

Something that is 100% accurate, powerful enough to take down missiles, and does not run out of ammo. And I agree with every one of them. Approaching something which has laser defense SHOULD require an armored craft.Let the lasers worry about the fast+agile things, rockets for incoming armor, and gatlings as the in-between moderate damage deterrent. I see a big issue with defense, because this is the game-breaking point for long term multiplayer persistent game. You can not protect (or at least make an effort toward protecting) your stuff when your offline.I also wrote about this issue in my suggestions on multiplayer: modding the space suit speed would also help enourmosly to be able to defend the base. Limit the acceleration rate to much lower value when getting above 10-15 m/s.

So you cant just roam around with space suits at max speed so easily and you cant dodge the gattlings. This would be an incentive to at least try to build a ship to attack a base. And then we can talk about defense balances and defense systems to counter all kinds of exploits, decoy ships, ramming ships etc.And for meaningful defense systems I try to brainstorm something: We need some kind of area denial system to make protective zones around bases.

Especially against space suits and smaller targets. I know force fields and shield are a no go for spe, because that would look odd in the design. But again, there are technologies even accessible in real life which use some kind of energy beam (not laser) to paint an area. So I would imagine something, like a microwave or IR projector which can target a volume and not just a beam, and anything entering into the field of projection would get damage. And closer to the source of energy the bigger the damage.

The base system could look like a reflector lamp with automated targeting mechanism. And when it senses something it targets and paint it with energy. (but it is not a laser BEAM! It has a few degrees of dispersion, so it behaves like normal light and can catch stuff which is not in the center point of the reticule as well).

I think that #1 MP servers need a reason to exist, because currently you can get everything you need from a single asteroid and never have contact with more than one or two players. MP servers first of all, need better optimising, second, a space station or colony that will destroy you if you attack it, with landing and takeoff permissions, third, they REALLY really need to make the ores more scarce, no trading going on anywhere I've played(But I don't MP much cause I have a sucky comp), fourth, there has to be a better system of connecting to servers than now, it takes like ten minutes min to download a map, It downloads everything at once, I think it should be a chunk LOS based system.Sorry if I got too off topic. Moving or holding still your ship is a target Scorpion, you say to keep them off the front line, in a third dimensional combat area like space, there is no front line they will simply go where it is docked and shoot it with missiles there. Your stations point defense systems will be just as ineffective as your ships and it will end the same way.Honestly it's frustrating to see so many people who don't see this issue the same way as I do, especially when to me it all seems so clear, and easily understood.But that is why we are human after all, and while I can respect others have opinions it does not mean I agree with any of them.

Same goes for your view of my opinion I suppose. Click to expand.I have. Just two fighters are pretty deadly when used correctly.

You wont be decimating entire capital ships, but if your plan is to cause damage and get out, its pretty simple. Damage means your enemy is spending time and resource repairing things instead of building up a larger fleet.On the storage container nuke problem, a tactic we have often used is to fly two missiles in tight formation. The first missile is a heavy armor missile full of decoy blocks, the second is the nuke. The turrets aim at the decoy, buying enough time to get the nuke in. Moving or holding still your ship is a target Scorpion, you say to keep them off the front line, in a third dimensional combat area like space, there is no front line they will simply go where it is docked and shoot it with missiles there.

Your stations point defense systems will be just as ineffective as your ships and it will end the same way.Honestly it's frustrating to see so many people who don't see this issue the same way as I do, especially when to me it all seems so clear, and easily understood.But that is why we are human after all, and while I can respect others have opinions it does not mean I agree with any of them. Same goes for your view of my opinion I suppose. Click to expand.It isnt about moving vs holding a ship. You could be off doing doughnuts in space for all I care, just dont transmit your location for the entire universe to see. I play in a 100x100km world and can honestly say that I have spent countless hours scouting and havent found ANYTHING. And I am scouting in an intelligent fashion (putting up GPS coords for areas searched). Keep your big ships back when on the offensive unless you want to lose a lot of hardware and keep those antennas offEDIT: sorry, should have mentioned.

Our world has around 10 active players. I'm sorry but I disagree, you telling me that the best way to deal with the balance issues is to simply hide or avoid combat, where my entire topic is about once combat begins, it always tilts overwhelmingly in the missiles favor.Yes you can hide or stay away from combat, but that does not deal with the issues I am trying to bring to the front of this discussion, I am saying they do to much damage to easily and to quickly with no counter or defense against them. Don't agree with this at all. If anything well designed capships can absorb too much damage from 200mm missiles and heavy guns.Heavy armor skeleton with Spaced heavy armor sections interlaced between light armor makes a ship hull more or less invulnerable to 200mm missile bombardment.

Most of the damage is going to be to steel components, which are trivially cheap and superficial.As long as the important guts are outside of the rocket blast volume it takes a huge number of missiles to punch through spaced armor. Large gattling gun arrays are actually better for cutting into hulls, and doubly better for sniping off turrets and important bits.I have several heavy fighter designs that can shrug off multiple 200mm hits without catastrophic damage because they use space pods to detonate the missiles away from anything important.In SE, volume and distribution are your best protection and that means using heavy armor strategically to protect the bits close in, and using light armor to buy you volume.I've never see one of these so called 'flimsy' capital ships built by anyone, frigate size gunboats aside. If anything most players design their own torpedoes and ore bombs precisely because missiles are just too damn weak against cap-ships. The answer is actually pretty simple. In game missiles, though currently reported as 200mm are functionally a lot similar to smaller rockets as someone mentioned. An easier solution to the PD dilemma and the rocket range dilemma is to add balanced cannon to the game, with respectable ranges.

Explosive rockets in-game seem silly to me anyway since it'd be more effective to load those 200mm up with propellant and mass to make the most effective kinetic penetrator possible. But again the whole rocket and PD debate is moot if cannon are introduced, for several reasons.A: The cannon rounds don't carry propellant, all of their velocity is achieved up front and so would be more effective at range. (speed of projectile)B: PD is worthless against cannon as the PD could not impart a velocity change which could appreciably deflect a cannon round due to the difference in mass.C: the rockets are objects, with physics in game, a cannon round would not need physics, a simple ray trace would suffice (adjusted for time to target), saving on processing in large engagements and allowing the projectile to have an in-game range limited only by the loaded distance.

This could quite likely add emergent gameplay by pushing large ship engagements to beyond LOS ranges.Rockets would then be relegated to a supporting weapon system for chewing up lightly armored targets or exploiting gaps in enemy defenses as the cannon took over as the primary weapon system. An explosive rocket makes sense in that role.There are several excellent cannon mods on the workshop now to include Keen's own Sniper mod. I trust that sooner or later Keen will refine and balance several of them for inclusion into the vanilla game. I'm sorry but I disagree, you telling me that the best way to deal with the balance issues is to simply hide or avoid combat, where my entire topic is about once combat begins, it always tilts overwhelmingly in the missiles favor.Yes you can hide or stay away from combat, but that does not deal with the issues I am trying to bring to the front of this discussion, I am saying they do to much damage to easily and to quickly with no counter or defense against them.

There not balanced, and this leads to people avoiding larger creations, avoiding combat, and avoiding each other. Click to expand.I think you are misreading me. I'm not saying to avoid combat at all.

I'm suggesting you keep your carriers and capital ships out of combat whenever possible. I dont put heavy armor on any of my fighters because I am expecting to lose them. I keep them light nimble, and cheap. If you want to get into capital ship combat you should consider adding a LOT more heavy armor. This game isnt Star Wars with the handwavium bubble shields, ships in combat will be taking damage IMMEDIATELY.As I stated earlier, pvp in survival mode is about mitigating losses and applying tactical combat strategies.

You wouldnt send in an aircraft carrier to an enemy port to bombard it. Instead, you would keep the carrier somewhere safe while the fighters or light ships do their job.Check out the Ticonderoga(CV-14) or the USS Laffey. Funny tidbit: there was a special on a US destroyer making gunruns at an obsolete hull that was being scuttled.

. FILTER(►) Livestreams(Bot is offline) (§) Subreddit Rulesand applyBe civil (No slurs, argue the point not the person)Submissions must be directly related to the game Space EngineersMeme-Posts that are directly related to Space EngineersNo witchhunting!Don't advertise your servers as 'official' or related to the subreddit!Don't link to your twitch-livestream! (vods and youtube is allowed)Low-Quality/Low-Effort Posts! (!) General InformationThis subreddit is about the video game 'Space Engineers', a space themed sandbox game with creation tools similar to minecraft which can be best described as: 'Shape and Build your own functional Space craft from self-obtained resources' ($) Where to BuyYou can purchase the PC version of the game from the or onYou can purcahse the Xbox version of the game from the Microsoft Store, or (:) Tips, Tricks and Tools@ LinksR Related Subreddits.

EDIT Updated version here:.On this version the turret mechanism is inverted, so the wheels are now on the inside of the ship. It is much more stable and has the advantages that it cannot come off and can run at maximum speed (takes about 12 seconds to do a full rotation).The concept: This is an automated gatling turret that makes its way around a cylindrical track using mass blocks, gravity and a rotor/wheel small ship.

The idea is this design could be used as a Point Defense/CIWS style turret to stop meteorites or opportunistic fighters. Combat oriented ships might find it easier to just have fixed turrets to provide 360 degree coverage, but for industrials/civilian craft/freighters or small space stations this might be a cost effective way of achieving full 360 degree afk-protection against small craft/collidable objects.Performance: The speed can be increased significantly without issue and the platform is stable. The version shown takes around 1:30 minutes to do a full rotation, but it can be made much faster.

Right now the concept model is occasionally a bit derpy but in testing it never came off the track or got stuck. Sample script for hosting a corporate event. The gravity/ mass block positioning just needs some fine-tuning to get a really smooth movement.

The only issue is if the whole ship abruptly stops using inertial dampeners at full speed then the turret can get enough momentum to come off. This could be prevented by raising the sides on the track.Future: If/when code blocks get added, it may be possible to stop the rotors on the platform if the turret fires - so it would hold its position until the target was destroyed. Minimum implementation would be x4 gravity generators on the large ship a small-ship small reactor on the turret chassis and a large ship small reactor on the actual turret - plus the gatling gun itself.This was just a proof-of-concept so its fairly energy inefficient.

On a larger station or ship it may be more economical - although from a survival perspective ammunition is cheap and silver + uranium for reactors is expensive in terms of time/gathering so in that sense it is not so economical. But I suspect the economy of objects will be heavily adjusted as the game develops.