+- 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 - mjolnir - 01-23-2009
' Wrote: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.
It can be balanced by making SN as well as Nova take some cargo when mounted, for example some 30-40 cargo for SN (say "for the power supply converters"))
Also a side effect of Nukes insta-killing any LF is that it also basically downs a VHF shield in one hit, which helps LFs a lot.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Drake - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:It can be balanced by making SN as well as Nova take some cargo when mounted, for example some 30-40 cargo for SN (say "for the power supply converters"))
Suppose that would work. The few SHFs could end up becoming some pretty nasty missile platforms.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - mjolnir - 01-23-2009
they are still limited to 70 max of one type, you could mount 4 missiles on them yes... but seriously did you ever had problem outturning and hitting an SHF?
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - NonSequitor - 01-23-2009
Voted "no" to both questions.
Nuke mines are already formidable enough. In any case, an 80% damage output increase strikes me as rather extreme.
If someone wants wants to make a missile boat, he/she takes a tactical risk of running out of blammo in the heat of battle. In addition, if the missile user runs into someone who can use a cd to counter missiles, well, the outcome of the battle is far from certain.
If the Vanilla vulnerability issue is being addressed in the next mod, that should be sufficient.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - SevereTrinity - 01-23-2009
Megiddo, at this point in time, Missileboats -never- run out of ammp.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - NonSequitor - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:Megiddo, at this point in time, Missileboats -never- run out of ammp.
Ok, that's a fair point if it's a one-on-one or one-on-two dogfight. But I imagine that a someone with an abundance of missile launchers on his fighter is going to attract some extra unwanted attention in a larger furball. I.e. he will get ganked. Or the offending pilot will succumb to ingame and forum-based peer pressure and install more guns on his ship.
Anyhoo, since we will be getting the beta first, we don't need to get terribly upset if things don't seem balanced in some area in 4.85. We'll still have an opportunity to work out the bugs and balance issues together before the final product is released.
Edit: I assume you were talking about fighters, not gunboats.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - El Nino - 01-23-2009
' Wrote: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.
It is funny one should think about this. But in reality, against a VHF, the missile bomber had very little chance in a 1 on 1 fight. We were thinking of making SN take cargo aswell about as much as Nova torps. So you can make a missile bomber, but only mount Inferno/Razors (limiting your anti-cap capabilities)... Anyhow I was dreaded that this would be an issue but it just isn't. Dodging a missile bomber in a faster fighter is very far from impossible.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Drake - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:It is funny one should think about this. But in reality, against a VHF, the missile bomber had very little chance in a 1 on 1 fight. We were thinking of making SN take cargo aswell about as much as Nova torps. So you can make a missile bomber, but only mount Inferno/Razors (limiting your anti-cap capabilities)... Anyhow I was dreaded that this would be an issue but it just isn't. Dodging a missile bomber in a faster fighter is very far from impossible.
Well, hopefully any bomber has little chance versus a VHF in a 1 on 1 fight. They shouldn't be fighter killers, only in the most capable pilot's hands should they be at all viable in a dogfight. I know that was one balance concern which was being discussed, I hope you guys figured it out.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - ... kur nubėgo? - 01-23-2009
Im a fraid that putting a missile slot, will force everyone to use missile to fill the weapon gaps, and thats not nice. Becouse some people likes to fly guns only mounts.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - me_b_kevin - 01-23-2009
i think making missile turrets would increase the much needed versatility of the fighter classes.
perhaps making buying a HF more attractive if it has more missile slots than a VHF?