[Galemp]

So, I'm trying to get the AI to use forward-mounted anticap fighterbeams properly, that is, like they would use bombs. I'm having trouble because they seem to want to turn this massively powerful weapon on fighters as well. It's no fun being fricassee'd along with my wingmates with just a glance from the enemy.
Adding the 'Huge' and 'Big Ship' tags seems to help a little, but I want to make sure this weapon is used only against large vessels.

Has anyone managed to do this successfully? If so, can we have a copy of the table entry?

Or is it only possible to get this behavior with a forward mounted turret that has a beam weapon mounted on it? That kinda defeats the purpose of fighterbeams, doesn't it?

[Singh]

A way around it would be in FRED, where You could beam-protect the enemy fighters so that the beams dont fire on them. However, this will prevent friendly anti-fighter beams from attacking them.

[StratComm]

I believe this may be a variation of Mantis bug #180, since I assume you've got the beams as primaries with the "Huge" flag.  IIRC, there's a potential conflict between when you want a weapon to be useful against capships to a degree while still balanced for fighters (a-la FS1) and the scenario that you describe.  It'd probably be worth making a note in that bug to show that more than one person has run in to this and wants it resolved.

[Galemp]

Thanks StratComm. I've added a bugnote.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Galemp
Thanks StratComm. I've added a bugnote.

According to Phreak it would take a lot of work to get resolved though.

[Galemp]

So despite all the work that's gone into making fighterbeams into primary weapons, to get the AI to use them properly we have to have to resort to the old turret-facing-forward technique?

[SadisticSid]

As I understand it, I think the concern of a ship not firing at its assigned target due to not having any appropriate weapons isn't an issue - it should be up to the mission/ship designer to ensure this doesn't happen. (After all, you could configure a Fenris with all SGreens then send it into a fighter melee and it'd do nothing.)

The burden should be on the user to make use of this functionality rather than writing it to accommodate the stupid. For instance, Inferno has all its bombers with a backup primary weapon for use against smaller targets, so this (presumably) wouldn't affect us...

[TrashMan]

Realisticly speaking, I don't see why a bomber couldn't use it's forward fixed uber-death beam against fighters...

when needs to be taken care of it's the weapons precision and charge time and such...

[StratComm]

Because that's a ***** to play against.  Sure, if only allied bombers use beams you won't see the issues.  But the moment you give them to any hostile craft, and then proceed to get vaporized by that craft, you've got a problem with mission balance.

[TrashMan]

That's why such weapons have to be vastly INPRECISE against smaller targets.

[StratComm]

You'll still have the issue of 1-hit kills though.  It can't be resolved just by changing properties of the beam.

[Kie99]

How can it be imprecise when it is fixed and forward facing?  The AI automatically faces at it's target.

[Galemp]

It's like Medusa's Gaze of Death. The enemy just points at each of your wingmates and they're vaporized. We need a beam targeting system that acts like bombs, that is, it can only be used against large, slow-moving targets.

[StratComm]

I think that's actually been discussed before too.  Beam secondaries.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Singh
A way around it would be in FRED, where You could beam-protect the enemy fighters so that the beams dont fire on them. However, this will prevent friendly anti-fighter beams from attacking them.

Can't we add a 'beam-protect-small' type flag that protects only against beams mounted as primary weapons?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by kietotheworld
How can it be imprecise when it is fixed and forward facing?  The AI automatically faces at it's target.

AI.. make fighter suck wit hheavy beam weapons...

[StratComm]

That's actually more complicated than just making them not fire.  What you're proposing is almost exactly the functionality we're asking for anyway with the added complication that istead of "fire" and "don't fire" we now have to accomodate "sometimes randomly miss" which is not only completely impossible to program but also doesn't address the problem in its entirety.  Nevermind that instead of JUST editing the AI we now also have to designate what weapons aren't supposed to be fired at fighters independently of some other tag.  Plus it's really relevant for other weapons as well, not just beams.  There's no reason to overly complicate things though, since that would actually be better accomodated to mounting the weapon on a turret anyway.

Edited for civility

[Galemp]

Chill out, man. Be civil. I know you and Trash have had your arguements but there's no reason to get snippy.

[StratComm]

Sorry, the snippyness is a carryover from the ID thread.  Hopefully I've made the tone less hostile now.

[Bobboau]

here is an idea, make the beams able to hit sheilds, give them a tiny sheild factor, it'll only kill you if your sheilds are out.