Ballistics (missiles/mines/etc)

[Dantrithor]

I would say something in the order of 230m/s. That allows to catch up a thrusting fighter which is not very far away. And something like an extra 15-20% of FoV so they can track targets more acurately, which is what is needed in group fights.

These changes wont affect jousts, as tracking there is not so important, neither is speed. 300m/s is maybe too fast, as they would catch up fighters quite far away (take into consideration the added momentum of the firing fighter)

---

[sovereign]

Oh right, momentum. Yeah, 230 sounds about right, and a tracking increase sounds good too.

---

[Jinx]

more speed helps if the enemy is not dodging too much. dodging would be a natural and logic countermeasure, but missiles tend to overturn and loose the target. - it would help to give missiles a MUCH longer lifetime and a tracking ability ( line of sight ) of 270 degrees. that way they d become much stronger chasing ships.



if it was possible, - a missile should allways launch with a momentum of zero and accelerate to its maximum speed. that way, we wouldn t get missiles that fly backwards with full reverse thrust ( when E-killed and fired backwards at 200 backwards momentum ) - if missiles used their own speed only, they d turn better and wouldn t easily loose track.



missile ammo using up cargospace instead - and having the max missile ammo at someone very high would be desirable, but calls for a massive balancing. - cargospace is often added without much thought about weapons. - if one for example buffs up missiles some hybrid assault shuttles, like the turranic raider or the armoured transport could become fighterkillers, just cause they CAN carry tons of ammo and have missile slots.



if its only applied to warships though we might have to revise the different sizes of the ships and their cargoload. - a BHG gunship still has too much cargospace compared to a rheinland battleship. 250 cargo is 1/5th of a battleships cargo? - and the gunship isn t even 1/100th the size of a battleship.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[mjolnir]

I believe everything around here was said in previous posts....

the speeds you are talking about now are just crazy... no need for guns at all then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The seeker angle should be increased first.. to see the results, then we can try to talk about the rest. Like I said here:

http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?s=...st&p=254173


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think canceling the momentum is possible Jinx... and frankly a Destroyer/Cruiser/GB flying backwards at 140 on e-kill.. you in a fighter/bomber thrusting at 200-140= 60 towards him with dodging it's even less.. and he spamming unlimited missiles that fly towards you at ~200.... balance anyone?:(

---

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

[McNeo]

more speed helps if the enemy is not dodging too much. dodging would be a natural and logic countermeasure, but missiles tend to overturn and loose the target. - it would help to give missiles a MUCH longer lifetime and a tracking ability ( line of sight ) of 270 degrees. that way they d become much stronger chasing ships.



if it was possible, - a missile should allways launch with a momentum of zero and accelerate to its maximum speed. that way, we wouldn t get missiles that fly backwards with full reverse thrust ( when E-killed and fired backwards at 200 backwards momentum ) - if missiles used their own speed only, they d turn better and wouldn t easily loose track.



missile ammo using up cargospace instead - and having the max missile ammo at someone very high would be desirable, but calls for a massive balancing. - cargospace is often added without much thought about weapons. - if one for example buffs up missiles some hybrid assault shuttles, like the turranic raider or the armoured transport could become fighterkillers, just cause they CAN carry tons of ammo and have missile slots.



if its only applied to warships though we might have to revise the different sizes of the ships and their cargoload. - a BHG gunship still has too much cargospace compared to a rheinland battleship. 250 cargo is 1/5th of a battleships cargo? - and the gunship isn t even 1/100th the size of a battleship.

If hybrid assault gunships became a viable alternative, then that can only be good. I see no use for such craft now, and if their missile capacity was high with the cargo space they have and it gave them a status as a fighter killer, at least they'd have a use along with the SHFs of this world. Right now, there are very very few in existance and that isn't desirable either.

A normal fighter has too much cargo space compared to a Rheinland battleship. 70 cargo, and by volume its a spec against the thing. Also, the Guardian has VHF-like cargo space, whereas the same modelled Defender has a lot less. Many unexplained illogical things.

But as it stands, I think the BHG GS would be balanced if these missile changes about ammo capacity linked to cargo capacity were to come in. A BHG GS can't survive a SN hit without a Cap VIII armour upgrade. If a pilot wants missiles, he can't have cap armour and is limited to a base of 2.5... I think this in itself balances this particular case.

However, lots of balancing would have to be done anyway with many of the other classes to see just what the effects would be. Both of our predictions were just that, and I am curious to see what would actually happen.

EDIT: 300ms would make fighter missiles seriously ridiculous... I agree with Mjolnir, up the seeking range first, the speed later. The speed is good enough if the missile can stay on track.

[DarthCloakedGuy]

I don't think canceling the momentum is possible Jinx... and frankly a Destroyer/Cruiser/GB flying backwards at 140 on e-kill.. you in a fighter/bomber thrusting at 200-140= 60 towards him with dodging it's even less.. and he spamming unlimited missiles that fly towards you at ~200.... balance anyone?:(

A fighter could just thrust away from that missile and keep thrusting until the missile's life was gone. You do realise ships travel at ~200 when thrusting, right?

---

HISPANIANS, FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF HER PEOPLE
A Plea to the Outcasts (PG)
CHARACTERS:
LR-I.Got.Nothin', LR-Empty.Pockets, and LR-Dead.End = "Lash" McDaggit of the Liberty Rogues.
SMUG~Eat.My.Exhaust = Jane Terraman and Bob McAdams, smugglers of the Liberty Rogues.
[H]Cj.Martino.Perez = Martino Perez, self-declared Counselor of the Hispanians.
AVATAR MADE BY SPIRIT! THE AWESOME.

[globalplayer-svk]

A fighter could just thrust away from that missile and keep thrusting until the missile's life was gone. You do realise ships travel at ~200 when thrusting, right?

and how long you will thrust when gb or crusier has unlimited ammo for missiles ? hours? days? weeks ?

---

[mjolnir]

[sarcasm]
oh really.. I didn't notice... In my disco career I only destroyed some ~500 capships in my bomber..I will check next time
[/sarcasm]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a serious note....


It can trust away.. if the missile was not fired from too close .. problem is the capship can spam the missiles like this forever.. and switch targets in between.

So no it doesn't make capships uber fighter-hunter. But it would make them invincible to them. And if he turns towards you and thrusts the missiles will go at 140+200(proposed)=340++ hard to thrust away from that one.

---

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

[DarthCloakedGuy]

I just think missiles need a major buff compared to their present strangth. Right now, missiles are far inferior to guns because they have a slower refire rate, lower accuracy (by a LOT), can be shot down, can be distracted by countermeasures, and to top it all off, you have to PAY CREDITS to shoot them. As they are, guns are a much more effective and cheaper alternative.

And Mjolnir, no one proposed 340. The highest I have seen proposed is 300. Quit using straw man arguments, they don't further your cause.

---

HISPANIANS, FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF HER PEOPLE
A Plea to the Outcasts (PG)
CHARACTERS:
LR-I.Got.Nothin', LR-Empty.Pockets, and LR-Dead.End = "Lash" McDaggit of the Liberty Rogues.
SMUG~Eat.My.Exhaust = Jane Terraman and Bob McAdams, smugglers of the Liberty Rogues.
[H]Cj.Martino.Perez = Martino Perez, self-declared Counselor of the Hispanians.
AVATAR MADE BY SPIRIT! THE AWESOME.

[mjolnir]

And Mjolnir, no one proposed 340. The highest I have seen proposed is 300. Quit using star man arguments, they don't further your cause.

Now it's you that didn't realize the right numbers here...

Read my post again.. it says 140 (ship speed, 200 for fighters) + 200 (proposed missile speed)= 340-400
since the speed of the ship that fires it adds up to the missile speed.



I'm using basically only numbers trough this whole thread..... but yes I do get angry.

EDIT: First 2-3 months I also thought fighter missiles are useless even in 1vs1... after those 3 months I learned to use them. As you may have seen I proposed the "seeker angle" upgrade which I believe would help.

As discovery is trying to keep the same style as original freelancer missiles should still be secondary weapons . If you make missiles too good vanilla ships will become useless also.

---

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