+- 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)
+--- Thread: Capital Ship Point Defense (/showthread.php?tid=17826)
Capital Ship Point Defense - n00bl3t - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:Yes, nub-cake, I see the irony. Bite me. I never made any requests to nerf anything, except that one little thread requesting a mild agility nerf on the Hacker gunship, but that was a while ago.
No need to, as I have said before.
You are chunking one out of yourself there.
Edit: Also, I never "wtfpwned" fighters in my cruisers, but I am still here.
Capital Ship Point Defense - Grumblesaur - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:No need to, as I have said before.
You are chunking one out of yourself there.
Yes, I might be, but it doesn't matter - new beta is out, which will probably please you all to a degree.
Capital Ship Point Defense - Camtheman Of Freelancer4Ever - 03-20-2009
Meh, Im going to stay in the FUN version for a while, Frigates can mount BS shields, you can hit fighters with everything, and best of all there is only 2 bombers, bahhahaha.
Bah, As it seems, There IS such thing as a bomberwhore, It can attack fighters and bombers with equal effieciency. A bomber doesnt need fighter escorts (should) and a BS does, as far as i am concerend, a BS in this failcake version cannot be whored. But I will note something, There is no such thing as a fighterwhore. Yet.
Capital Ship Point Defense - Grumblesaur - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:Meh, Im going to stay in the FUN version for a while, Frigates can mount BS shields, you can hit fighters with everything, and best of all there is only 2 bombers, bahhahaha.
Bah, As it seems, There IS such thing as a bomberwhore, It can attack fighters and bombers with equal effieciency. A bomber doesnt need fighter escorts (should) and a BS does, as far as i am concerend, a BS in this failcake version cannot be whored. But I will note something, There is no such thing as a fighterwhore. Yet.
Oh, YES, Cam, it doesn't take ANY skill to shoot a FIGHTER with a 280M/S Supernova Cannon. Oh, it's SO easy to kill a fighter with only FOUR guns. OF COURSE we can solo battleships, we can do EVERYTHING.
New beta. Get it. Play it. Love it. Forget 4.82.
You're such a capwhore. Honestly, I wasn't even here for 4.82 and I know it failed epically. Hitting LFs with Light Mortars is over kill.
Capital Ship Point Defense - X-Lancer - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:Can I see a reference for this please?actually...Anti-Surface Missile has much longer range than the defences on the Carrier..BUT....Carrier has missile defence system as mid-range intercept and CIWS as short range intercept.....
Apply the same thing to a Cruiser.
Yes. I agree that the BS should be useless against fighters, however, when it comes to bombers, which can cause a lot of damage for the BS, the should not be as useless as they are now.
Moder US Carrier Standar defence System..
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
30+ nautical miles; 34.5+ statue miles; 55.5+ km
Max Range = 6 nm according to other sources
Minimum Range: 1,600 yards; 1463 meters
Director Lock-on range: 50nm
CIWS: 4500m
get some military facts folks...
Capital Ship Point Defense - n00bl3t - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:Oh, YES, Cam, it doesn't take ANY skill to shoot a FIGHTER with a 280M/S Supernova Cannon. Oh, it's SO easy to kill a fighter with only FOUR guns. OF COURSE we can solo battleships, we can do EVERYTHING.
The fighter you are shooting is usually moving towards you, either thrusting or on impulse, that relatively increases the speed of the SN by 80-200 m/s. Also, your ship is moving towards that fighter at 80-200 m/s, so the SN could be moving towards the other ship, relatively, at 680 m/s.
Bombers have a larger powerplant which can use codenames without significant power drain. If they have the 3.03 codenames, then yes, they have an advantage.
Yes, a bomber can almost solo a BS. They can also solo a cruiser/destroyer.
Capital Ship Point Defense - Camtheman Of Freelancer4Ever - 03-20-2009
If only microsuck had open-sauced Freelancer, We could make nice seperate turret slot types and shield slot types.
Carriers could be Turret Type 6
It currently goes
1-5 Fighter turrets
7 Transport turrets
8 GB turrets
9 Cruiser Turrets
10 BS turrets.
Capital Ship Point Defense - n00bl3t - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:actually...Anti-Surface Missile has much longer range than the defences on the Carrier..BUT....Carrier has missile defence system as mid-range intercept and CIWS as short range intercept.....
Moder US Carrier Standar defence System..
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
30+ nautical miles; 34.5+ statue miles; 55.5+ km
Max Range = 6 nm according to other sources
Minimum Range: 1,600 yards; 1463 meters
Director Lock-on range: 50nm
CIWS: 4500m
get some military facts folks...
Why are you quoting me for this?
Capital Ship Point Defense - Grumblesaur - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:The fighter you are shooting is usually moving towards you, either thrusting or on impulse, than relatively increases the speed of the SN by 80-200 m/s. Also, your ship is moving towards that fighter are 80-200 m/s, so the SN could be moving towards the other ship, relatively, at 680 m/s.
Bombers have a larger powerplant which can use codenames without significant power drain. If they have the 3.03 codenames, then yes, they have an advantage.
Yes, a bomber can almost solo a BS. They can also solo a cruiser/destroyer.
But the fighter should be strafing. The SN is a dumb fire weapon and the Nova is just suicide in a can. Yes, we have a larger powerplant, yes we can use quad codes, but that doesn't mean that it's easy to hit with 600m/s guns. Fighters can outmaneuver us, so what is your point besides the fact that some of us are good with an uberslow pwn cannon?
Yes, a Barghest or a Fafnir can kill a BS solo if the BS had no turrets, shield, or pilot. We can't solo a good pilot, which you, Tenacity, and Cam apparently are.
Capital Ship Point Defense - X-Lancer - 03-20-2009
' Wrote:Why are you quoting me for this?
you said give some reference..so i give it....i am not saying you are wrong..i am just proofing your point..