• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery Development Discovery Mod General Discussion Discovery Mod Balance
« Previous 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 … 55 Next »
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Poll: Should damage done by explosives be increased? (note that vanilla and equipment vulnerability is removed)
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
68.68%
125 68.68%
No
31.32%
57 31.32%
Total 182 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Pages (17): « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 17
Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll
Offline Jinx
04-07-2009, 08:33 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-07-2009, 08:35 PM by Jinx.)
#161
skipasmiður
Posts: 7,685
Threads: 313
Joined: Sep 2007

i don t think it was a good idea to warm up that topic again... but there you go.

it is one of those one sided topics ... like the phantom weapons topic or so many other polls.

[Image: just_a_signature_by_sjrarj-d63yjsx.png]
Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC
Reply  
Offline hribek
04-08-2009, 04:41 AM,
#162
Member
Posts: 1,159
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2007

Personally I don't still see missiles being overused. I have even defeated =LSF=Fluid (who is well known to have been using and using a missile-heavy VHF (no rant here)

in a Falcata with 4 codes, SN + Inferno. He gave me a hard time, but the missiles didn't help him to win. If he had guns, he probably would.

He had sidewinder + cannonball. Problem is that noone can reasonably define what usage of missiles is "fair", "reasonable" or "sensible". That should be done first and I don't think we can come to a conclusion on even that thing.
Reply  
Offline Friday
04-08-2009, 05:17 AM,
#163
Member
Posts: 1,897
Threads: 76
Joined: Aug 2007

If you had cargo requirement for ammo you could do the following:

1) Raise the absolute limit on ammo from 70 to a big number.

This would allow ammo launchers to be varied to suit all classes of ship - including capital class ships. Caps could then have ammo limited launchers - and have the cargo space to carry enough ammo as they would IRL.


2) Cargo value then becomes the balancing factor between different ammo types - AND different ship types.

You could make a range of ammo types from weak to powerful, and balance them by cargo requirement.

Then in theory all ships could carry say - a heavy torp that doesnt chew energy - but DOES have a cargo value. So a fighter with a torp launcher could carry them - but not nearly as many as a bomber, or a cap ship with torp launchers.

Much like todays fighters. Sure they can carry a couple of cruise missiles - but a bomber carries a buttload more - and a guided missile frigate carries more still!

With an increased variety of ammo types, one might then think about designing faction-specific ammunition - sold on faction bases.


3) With price variation put - AMMO itself becomes a new set of trade commodities!

This is optional - but the potential is there. Gives a whole new dimension to the smuggling of arms.

[Image: GMG_banner.png]

  Reply  
Offline ... kur nubėgo?
04-12-2009, 05:55 PM,
#164
Member
Posts: 3,019
Threads: 114
Joined: Jul 2008

' Wrote:If you had cargo requirement for ammo you could do the following:

1) Raise the absolute limit on ammo from 70 to a big number.

This would allow ammo launchers to be varied to suit all classes of ship - including capital class ships. Caps could then have ammo limited launchers - and have the cargo space to carry enough ammo as they would IRL.


2) Cargo value then becomes the balancing factor between different ammo types - AND different ship types.

You could make a range of ammo types from weak to powerful, and balance them by cargo requirement.

Then in theory all ships could carry say - a heavy torp that doesnt chew energy - but DOES have a cargo value. So a fighter with a torp launcher could carry them - but not nearly as many as a bomber, or a cap ship with torp launchers.

Much like todays fighters. Sure they can carry a couple of cruise missiles - but a bomber carries a buttload more - and a guided missile frigate carries more still!

With an increased variety of ammo types, one might then think about designing faction-specific ammunition - sold on faction bases.


3) With price variation put - AMMO itself becomes a new set of trade commodities!

This is optional - but the potential is there. Gives a whole new dimension to the smuggling of arms.

And in this way youll soon have endlessly missile spaming frieghters... Wuhu \m/

Omega Pirates Guild
History of OPG | Antonio "Vilkas" Devivar
Reply  
Pages (17): « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 17


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode