+- 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 - BeanzOnToast - 01-23-2009
They are powerfull enough ...
Single nuke hitting my unshielded Slipstream (mk8 armor of course) does :
*gun lost*
*turret lost*
*launcher lost*
*hull breach eminent*
Which leaves me with 2 almost destroyed Krakens at best ...
And as was stated before - mines aren't used, they are abused at the moment. So perhaps leave mines as they are?
As for missiles/torps - I don't mind them beeing more powerfull as long as they'll be limited somehow (Sidewinder, cannonball, firestalker, paralyzer and 2 debs on an Eagle is a bit of a pain)
Which means i voted:
No. for making them more powerfull
And i went for cargo limit on how to limit them.
Also would be awesome to include caps in the cargo rule somehow ... BH missilecruisers are getting slightly annoying.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - El Nino - 01-23-2009
' Wrote: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.
:rtfm:You would get guns + some gunslots that can mount guns or missiles. Noone would force you to mount missiles. all that can be done.
HF's are quite attractive with missiles already, seeing how they are faster than VHF's. Turn speed gives you a lot of advantage in a missile fight. As you can turn, fire the missile and then dodge all incoming fire. Rendering you pretty invulnerable. In a bomber you will find that very very hard to do. As you turn like a brick compared to a say HF or VHF. LF's really enter the equation here.
No need for missile turrets.
:DAlso missile abusing BC's will be SHOCKED! hehe.
Quozz now your guns will survive so will your turret so will your CM so will your launcher... But your LF wont:D... i need to add that Rippers are the same as old nukes, and new nukes generaly don't track so well. So LF that get's hit deserves to die.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - BeanzOnToast - 01-23-2009
' Wrote::DAlso missile abusing BC's will be SHOCKED! hehe.
YUS !!!
' Wrote:Quozz now your guns will survive so will your turret so will your CM so will your launcher... But your LF wont:D... i need to add that Rippers are the same as old nukes, and new nukes generaly don't track so well. So LF that get's hit deserves to die.
Well it wouldn't be that hard to evade the nukes for the first two minutes of fight ... Most of the times after said 2 minutes minefield surrounding the fighters is almost as big as the one "protecting" Zone 21:PAdd lets say ... 5% packet loss and you're doomed:P
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - swift - 01-23-2009
Mines disappear with time. I don't think they last more than 30-60 seconds.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - BeanzOnToast - 01-23-2009
Meh it must be my skills then ... or my luck perhaps ... i seem to attract all of them for some reason ... both enemy ones as well as my own ...
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - me_b_kevin - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:HF's are quite attractive with missiles already, seeing how they are faster than VHF's. Turn speed gives you a lot of advantage in a missile fight. As you can turn, fire the missile and then dodge all incoming fire. Rendering you pretty invulnerable. In a bomber you will find that very very hard to do. As you turn like a brick compared to a say HF or VHF. LF's really enter the equation here.
No need for missile turrets.
i think it would be a nice trade off. HF with more missile turrets and agility with the draw back of less armor. while the VHF has more armor and a larger power plant to power the extra guns. makes sense to me.
what if the VHF just had missile turrets added in addition to the current loadouts and in exchange lose the ability to shoot infernos, SN's, and the like?
leave the bombing to the bombers and make the VHF even more.....heavy.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - DragonLancer - 01-23-2009
I don't want a change of the damage output.
And I think separate missile slots is a good idea.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - swift - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:what if the VHF just had missile turrets added in addition to the current loadouts and in exchange lose the ability to shoot infernos, SN's, and the like?
leave the bombing to the bombers and make the VHF even more.....heavy.
I would strongly object to that, as there are factions, like mine, that insist on VHF use, and still have to cope with fighting capital ships.
Not everyone has access to bombers.
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - me_b_kevin - 01-23-2009
' Wrote:I would strongly object to that, as there are factions, like mine, that insist on VHF use, and still have to cope with fighting capital ships.
Not everyone has access to bombers.
i was unaware that some factions didn't have access to bombers. i thought there was at least one that every faction could realistically use.
then i retract my "what if" statement
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Jinx - 01-23-2009
every faction has access to at least one bomber ( at the very least - the civi bomber, which is generic and totally free for all ( and not bugged ) in 4.85 )
the only reason one faction might NOT be allowed a bomber is by SELF restriction - which wouldn t count then.