Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll

[Jihadjoe]

- change hardpoints on all ships so that only 2 per ship can mount missiles as well as guns, while others can mount only guns

I think thats the best suggestion.

So on a VHF you would have two slots which are labeled "missile/gun" while the other four would be labeled "gun".

I also suggest making the two class 10 missiles class 9 instead.

---

[Jinx]

voten yes to the damage increase to be in line with new guns and vulnerability of ships... and "no" to cargo requirement.

i have stated my reasons on the dev forum, but can do here again of course..

- cargo capacity is effectivly a nerf - ... it limits the choices of weapons and puts the missile loadout on the "bad" side. - guns are treated golden and missiles only considered a secondary weapon. it is a tendency that i do not support - cause its purely based on a subjective pov. - one could as well say "shield busters are BAD - lets make it so that you can only mount 2" - or "codenames are bad - lets make it so that you can only mount 1 or 2".

missiles are not broken - evading a good missile gunner is much easier than evading a good gunner - in my opinion, the effective use of missiles is also not skill-less ( unless one likes to blow oneself up ) - it took a long while until people found out about the effecitiveness of missiles in 4.84 - and soon, people will adept evasive tactics against missiles - so less players mount missiles.

all in all, i don t support the "nerf everything thats currently popular" fashion. - there is always something to moan about - until we all fly starfliers with justice mk1 guns ( but only 2 ) - when its not the battleships, its the bad battlecruisers - when its not the battlecruisers, its the bad gunship - then its the bad missile gunboats - then its the bad and agile bombers, then its the evil supernova - then its the unfair missiles....

the list can go on - ... evil codenames, evil shieldbusters, evil nuke mines, evil armour type 8, evil light fighters, evil ravens claw, etc.

if we nerft everything that one can complain about .. instead of reacting to it we d really end up with nothing.

one argument for the nerf was that its unfair to insta kill - but if someone jousts a missile fighter straight on, its ones own fault, - then it was said that fights only consist of dodging until the ammo is depleted ( hence, a boring fight ) - but there re so many options switch CMs on automatic, CDs.... or ... a retreat. - in the end, one does not fight what one cannot win against.

so - imo - missiles and ammo based weapons should stick to the vanilla ammo base ( either the original 50 - or the disco 70 ) - but not cargo based.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[Derkylos]

At present, the use of fighter-type explosives against a non-vanilla ship is only practical in order to strip equipment.

If equipment durability goes up, vanillaness (is that a word?...hah) is removed and explosive damage stays the same, explosives will no longer be a viable weapon...you will be removing maybe 5-10 bots per shot.

I'm all for making CMs much tougher, possibly CDs as well, as these are the main counters to missiles.

However, nerfing explosives to the point where they are basically a slow-refire, ammo-dependant gun kinda removes their flavor.

Honestly, I think the current balance of explosive damage:durability ratio is almost perfect, merely requiring the non-vanillaisation of ships and increased durability of missile counters.

---

[swift]

50 I would say. But I still think I need more time to decide my vote. I would suggest the same to others as well, do not vote at random, read the comments and arguments first, so you do not end up voting for something you do not want.

I just now, that if it comes to the majority of players wanting a damage increas for explosives, maybe it should not be 80%, but a bit less. How much, I cannot say at this point.

---

<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">

<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

</span></span>

<span style="color:#33FFFF">The CFF</span>

<span style="color:#33FF33">CFF Communication Channel and RP Collection</span>

[Coin]

voted no to increase, ('cos the NPC's will get the same buff, and make them a LOT harder to kill if they are zapping you with ordinance 80% upgraded)

and no to limiting the number of ordinance dropped at once.
(cos this is a twich based game, and therefore dependant on skill. I have my extra mouse buttons set up so i can fire mines/CD's/CM's/AND a missile, at once. Necessary for survival in a GB against 3 bombers and 2 VHFs, IMO)

- all equipment (guns, thrusters, cm, shields ++) was made more explosion resistant (basically you loose lvl 9 guns in a VHF right as you run out of bots)

- CMs are one of the most explosive-resistant components (they are the last thing left)

/approved!

Also like the idea of limiting missile boats and the 'Fighter/bomber' loadout. Gun/Missile slots are a good idea.

Edit: also like the idea of a level requirement for mines.

Could this be done for engines, CM's, CD's and *gulp* armour upgrades? This would mean that we won't see LF's with cheetah (or cheater) thrusters, Nuclear mines and Enh CM's.

Also, we'd see people using a variety of AU, instead of the de rigeur Lvl 8's

---

A Day in the Life of an NPC | Coin | The Journal of Caius Oakley | Build Your Dream Boat

[mjolnir]

I must say I'm surprised how a lot of people say that the damage should be kept...

that would among other things mean that no LF dies to 1 nuke..... it takes some 12 Sunslayers to down a VHF or shot its guns off... and similar things.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, just wonder if that's what they want.



========================================================

Agreed, 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

So you are saying that we should limit the slots and then introduce another ship that has them the other way to keep choices the same? So after huge ammount of work you are right on the start...

uhh.. isn't it easier not to change it the first place?

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[Kambei]

DMG increase of cannonballs into 8k = 16k with dual = LFs are screwed (thats how it should be because they have agility instead of strenght). Nukes are the same case.

I dont agree with reducing fire rate... if someone is stupid enough to shoot on ayou whole ammo in first minute of fight... let him. Curent refire rate is an advantage for those who arent spammers than for spamers themselves. (note weakness of guns against splash from explos is reduced)

---

[mjolnir]

So on a VHF you would have two slots which are labeled "missile/gun" while the other four would be labeled "gun".

This is not how it works as I wrote in the post.

You can't change the slot "type", you can only change the "class" so missiles would need to be separate class (for example class 5) and all class 5 guns be removed.

---

Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.

[Varyag]

The high level LFs should not be kept from using mines. It is sort of a primary weapon for those classes (there is an art to a well placed mine, not spam). You are talking about double pounding missiles, I assume this is to get around shields. Maybe they could use shield bats to fire along with ammo and lessen the cargo requirment. This would show a power drain to indicate the more powerful weapon (eg. the ships reactor couldn't handle the activation requirement or whatnot).

Just a little brain storming.

-edit- Maybe the anti-matter cannons could use the shield bat idea too, give a logical reason for the ship to be able to fire such a nasty gun.

---

"I looked up and all I saw was green death"

[swift]

But it would have the same effect no, Mjolnir?

And I also must say, if it comes to an increase to damage of explosives, special thought and consideration should be made to the rate of the increase?

Some players voting Yes on it here might not agree with an 80% increase, many of them might not. Point is, we do not know.

---

<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">

<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

</span></span>

<span style="color:#33FFFF">The CFF</span>

<span style="color:#33FF33">CFF Communication Channel and RP Collection</span>