+- 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 - El Nino - 01-23-2009
Well having more than 2 missiles seems like abuse in my eyes.
Also i'd have to point out, reworking all guns to make missiles only loadable on say 2 hardpoints, includes A LOT, i mean A LOT, of work.
Wich most likeley i'll be doing. Everything can be easily done... the problem is with those bloody guns there are just so many of them, and each and everyone needs to be edited, then there's each ship, and it's hardpoints.
End result is promissing and very desirable. Ships can mount like Switf said, all guns or guns + a predetermined ammount of missiles...
Is this the most realistic way? Most natural?
I felt cargo was more natural, with the possibility of even removing ammo limits in the future and replace it all with cargo limit. But that requires tonnes more balancing in the future.
Also nukes were boosted by 80%, Missiles were only boosted by about 50% sunslayer only by about 10% varried boosts. Without these i believe missiles are a bit on the useless side. And explosives should probably be more around high damage, with limitations regarding how many you can carry.
:PAgain the cargo bit... when you take a look at modern fighters, most of their cargo goes for ammunition and fuel. that is basicly all they carry. You don't see fighters haulling around 80 units of Niobium... you see them carrying 8 missiles and a few bombs... I think new missiles would capture a bit of vanila feel some more... actually they would have to be boosted some 2.5 times (due to armor upgrade) instead they only get a slight 1.5 wich brings them kind of in line with boosted guns.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Orin - 01-23-2009
Quote:Also nukes were boosted by 80%, Missiles were only boosted by about 50% sunslayer only by about 10% varried boosts.That's kind of disheartening. Nukes, which are already spammed by 90% of pilots, get better. Missiles, which are used a lot, but not quite as much as Nukes, are boosted further. And Sunslayers, which are almost never used, and are almost useless against custom models anyways now, are only boosted 10%?
Completely backwards, in my opinion. The strong get stronger, and the weak stay about the same. :\
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - tansytansey - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:That's kind of disheartening. Nukes, which are already spammed by 90% of pilots, get better. Missiles, which are used a lot, but not quite as much as Nukes, are boosted further. And Sunslayers, which are almost never used, and are almost useless against custom models anyways now, are only boosted 10%?
Completely backwards, in my opinion. The strong get stronger, and the weak stay about the same. :\
I agree. In my eyes making explosives stronger makes the point of removing vanilla weakness void for a lot of ships with low armor. I don't mind the increased missile damage output, but for nuke mines it is rather rediculous. I do hope as compensation nukes are made to use noteable energy even on VHFs. Or maybe a reduced refire rate.
It should take a well placed mine to kill a light fighter, not a massive cloud of them.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Orin - 01-23-2009
I'm not so much against a massively strong Nuke as I am a not massively strong Cannonball or Sunslayer.
An 80% increase for the one of the most spammed and useful weapons, and only 10% increase for one of the seldom used weapons? Completely off base, not to mention a 10% increase is... pitiful. 50% with missiles... not bad, but why not bring them alongside the Nuke increase?
If you're going to boost ordinances, boost them all. Don't boost one incredibly, and others almost to an almost unnoticeable extent.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - kingvaillant - 01-23-2009
Should damage done by explosives be increased? (note that vanilla and equipment vulnerability is removed)
Yes
Should usage of multiple explosives at once be limited?
Yes, by introducing cargo requirements
--
I think option one would be the best idea. Since it may create a more realist feeling without crippling too much. It will also promote RP and prevent players from having 6 launchers.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - swift - 01-23-2009
I agree with what Jure said up there.
And that kind of enhancement for damage in those percentages would be good, I think.
The thing is, yes some spam nukes, but man, like it's hard to dodge a nuke..
Plus, people like me, who use up maybe 7 nukes per fight, would suffer if the damage output would not be like that.
The point of making nukes so strong, I think, is making them able to kill a Light Fighter instantly, and missiles are not upped 80% but 50% because think about it, currently CB does 4.8 k, it will do 7.2 in 4.85.
So if you mount a CB Sidewinder, or dual CBs, you will do around 10-14 k damage per hit.
What dropping half of a VHF hull with a single missile hit not enough for you?
Anyways, the slot or cargo thing would be desirable.
Slot if the devs will have the time to make it all, as Jure said that is the best option, but requires tons of work, and I leave that to the devs to decide if they want to do all that work.
If not the slots, then the cargo limitations.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Orin - 01-23-2009
I didn't complain about the missiles, Swift. Didn't really complain about the Nukes either. Look again.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Spear - 01-23-2009
I voted yes to damage increase and yes to cargo limitations, seems like the best way to me.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - looqas - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:I voted yes to damage increase and yes to cargo limitations, seems like the best way to me.
Me too.
With the vanilla vulnerabilities being addressed I think missiles should get a boost a bit to make then viable "wearing the opponent down" weapon, like guns are.
Also cargo limitations based on mjolnir's explanation seem to me the best way to implement variety and choice to what to take and what not. To me trying to achieve the same goal (opponent's death) via different, yet appealing, paths defines Disco.
As people claim using missiles is a skill then all the "nerfs" (cargo thing and possible refire rate toning down) made to shouldn't be much of a problem, but IMO would require in deed skill placing the explosives.
I have an inborn dislike for instakill weapons or combos of instakills. It just smacks too much of a base rape in other FPS and it really does not add anything to Disco. Players tend to use those kind of things and become very proficient in those (SNAC anyone?). In my humble opinion players should be forgiven mistakes in battle and not punish the one single mistake in a 30min fight.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Drake - 01-23-2009
An issue with cargo requirements for ammo: While it hinders the LFs most of all, which is the least of the missile-spam problem, if it's designed to let VHFs mount two missiles with full ammo then it will likely be possible for bombers to mount all four gun slots with missiles. If VHFs can only effectively hold ammo for two missiles (plus mines, etc.), and LFs less than that, then bombers should certainly not be able to carry more. That's just unbalancing. Missiles require less agility than guns, making them the perfect bomber weapons, to go along with that SNAC/Razor.