![]() |
|
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Printable Version +- 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 - 01-22-2009 Note that we are talking about fighter class missiles here Changes that are being done to fighter class ships and equipment in 4.85 (these are necessary for balance among fighter class ships and balance towards caps)
Possible changes to damage done by explosives
Lately (last 4 months) use of explosives on the RP server has increased dramatically. Due to the changes above the explosives are in 4.85 much more user-friendly, so there are some concerns that the trend might continue or even get worse. Of particular concern are "missile boats" (mounting often 4 or more missile launchers), specially when it comes to coming HFs There are several possible ways to avoid the "overuse" of explosives. Possible ways to limit overuse of explosives
Vote for the options above or combinations and add comments related to the numbers. Results will directly influence what comes in first 4.85 public beta. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - SilentAssassin82 - 01-22-2009 I voted no to a change in damage output And i think if we want to limit the amount of missiles equiped on a fighter it should be done through seprate missile slots. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - ProwlerPC - 01-22-2009 Yes to making missiles cause more damage or we might find them even unable to be effective against NPC (buffed ones) I also think the cargo requirements is all that's needed as it still allows the choice of full missiles (I don't do it but I don't really mind it) but also comes with a penalty that allow for that kind of important decision. Anymore on top of the cargo requirement may be to much of a disuassion. Nice how that same decision process will come into effect with armour as well. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Ash - 01-22-2009 Seperate missile slots seems like a butt spanikingly good idea. Makes missiles more interesting. Have gun slots then missile slots not Gun/Missile mounts. This way everyone can have missiles but use them at oppertune moments and value them more. Hence eliminating missile spam. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - swift - 01-22-2009 I have a question before I start thinking about how to cast my vote. This missile only slots thing. How exactly would that be done? For example, I now have 6 guns on my VHF. How will it be if this is done? 1. 6 guns + 2 missiles? 2. 4 guns + 2 slots for either missile or gun? 3. 5 guns + 1 missile? 4. 5 guns + 1 slot for either missile or gun? Etc. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Muleo - 01-22-2009 Mjolnir badly worded the slots bit. A vhf can mount full guns if he wishes. But only 2(or whatever number is decided) will be capable of mounting a missile. THAT's what he meant. so.. number 2 in your example swift Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - ProwlerPC - 01-22-2009 Yeah it's why I didn't go with the slots idea, I feel that it elimnates choices. I also only have one Fighter/Bomber that uses missiles, the rest are all-gun loadouts. I also on that note don't mind if a player choses to scarifice cargo for missile loadout, I have won many battles against missile loadouts using CMs and CDs. I think the choices for loadouts (and consequentially tactics) should remain but the added cargo penalty helps in creating a more balanced decision. Edit: I'm a slow typer noted the post above mine, I still feel the whole range of decision be allowed but carries it's penalties in game mechanics. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - skoko - 01-22-2009 ' Wrote:I voted no to a change in damage outputAgreed, and by limiting missiles on like 90 % of fighters there should be also types of fighters that can mount dunno 4 missile and 2 gunslots or something like that .. (I don't like what i've just said) BUT it is ballancer's responsibility to keep diversity alive .... and make Disco free for all in loadout sense! Skoko Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - farmerman - 01-22-2009 I am thinking perhaps missle damage could be increased, but not the top of the line mines. 10k for a nuke seems quite good, unless something else is being changed with mines. Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll - Drake - 01-22-2009 Yes to damage increase, though an 80% increase may be a bit excessive. The only limiting factor I like is giving ships a max of 2 missile/gun slots. Cargo requirement seems to limit LFs from using missiles, as does significant energy consumption. All fighters should be able to mount/use at least two missiles. |