+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Discovery Mod Balance (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+---- Thread: Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll (/showthread.php?tid=15624)
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Jinx - 04-07-2009
i don t think it was a good idea to warm up that topic again... but there you go.
it is one of those one sided topics ... like the phantom weapons topic or so many other polls.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - hribek - 04-08-2009
Personally I don't still see missiles being overused. I have even defeated =LSF=Fluid (who is well known to have been using and using a missile-heavy VHF (no rant here)
in a Falcata with 4 codes, SN + Inferno. He gave me a hard time, but the missiles didn't help him to win. If he had guns, he probably would.
He had sidewinder + cannonball. Problem is that noone can reasonably define what usage of missiles is "fair", "reasonable" or "sensible". That should be done first and I don't think we can come to a conclusion on even that thing.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Friday - 04-08-2009
If you had cargo requirement for ammo you could do the following:
1) Raise the absolute limit on ammo from 70 to a big number.
This would allow ammo launchers to be varied to suit all classes of ship - including capital class ships. Caps could then have ammo limited launchers - and have the cargo space to carry enough ammo as they would IRL.
2) Cargo value then becomes the balancing factor between different ammo types - AND different ship types.
You could make a range of ammo types from weak to powerful, and balance them by cargo requirement.
Then in theory all ships could carry say - a heavy torp that doesnt chew energy - but DOES have a cargo value. So a fighter with a torp launcher could carry them - but not nearly as many as a bomber, or a cap ship with torp launchers.
Much like todays fighters. Sure they can carry a couple of cruise missiles - but a bomber carries a buttload more - and a guided missile frigate carries more still!
With an increased variety of ammo types, one might then think about designing faction-specific ammunition - sold on faction bases.
3) With price variation put - AMMO itself becomes a new set of trade commodities!
This is optional - but the potential is there. Gives a whole new dimension to the smuggling of arms.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - ... kur nubėgo? - 04-12-2009
' Wrote:If you had cargo requirement for ammo you could do the following:
1) Raise the absolute limit on ammo from 70 to a big number.
This would allow ammo launchers to be varied to suit all classes of ship - including capital class ships. Caps could then have ammo limited launchers - and have the cargo space to carry enough ammo as they would IRL.
2) Cargo value then becomes the balancing factor between different ammo types - AND different ship types.
You could make a range of ammo types from weak to powerful, and balance them by cargo requirement.
Then in theory all ships could carry say - a heavy torp that doesnt chew energy - but DOES have a cargo value. So a fighter with a torp launcher could carry them - but not nearly as many as a bomber, or a cap ship with torp launchers.
Much like todays fighters. Sure they can carry a couple of cruise missiles - but a bomber carries a buttload more - and a guided missile frigate carries more still!
With an increased variety of ammo types, one might then think about designing faction-specific ammunition - sold on faction bases.
3) With price variation put - AMMO itself becomes a new set of trade commodities!
This is optional - but the potential is there. Gives a whole new dimension to the smuggling of arms.
And in this way youll soon have endlessly missile spaming frieghters... Wuhu \m/