Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll

[MarvinCZ]

Uhm...
Right.
In regards to Option 2 for limiting missiles:
Unless the class replaced for missiles was class 10(which doesn't actually change much...), you would not have missile/gun mounts. There would be mounts on every ship which would have to be a missile, or have a class 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever level maximum gun in it. Guns have not been rebalanced so that lower level guns are effective, unless I've missed a major change.

Such a change would, if you've missed that, force every single ship to either use 4 instead of 6 guns, or use 4 guns and a pair of missiles, or whatever. Every single powerplant, then, would be effectively larger than it was before because missiles use less energy, and, in general, people do not use missile/gun loadouts as much as they use pure gun loadouts.

If we're unwilling to add different ships for the benefit of having multiple skins, I seriously doubt we're adding variations to possible missile loadouts.

Just wrong.

I believe you expect that the hardpoint has a "max weapon class" set. That is wrong. A hardpoint is usually capable of mounting all classes 1..n, but I could as easily create a hardpoint that can mount gun classes 2, 5, 8 and 9 (or any other set of classes I want).

[Orin]

Damage output. 100% yes. Missiles, and even sunnies do not do enough to non-Vanilla models at the moment. And with Vanillas losing the weakness, won't do crap to any ship. A buff is completely needed.

And... while I like the limiting to 2 missiles on each VHF, I don't understand how you can do it. If you make it necessary to equip a certain level missile, lvl 4, lvl 5, etc, then how will you equip a lvl 9 or 10 gun, if you choose to use all guns? I'd understand if the slots were Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun/Missile, Gun/Missile, but that's not what you're saying.

Also, I don't think bombers should be utterly excluded from missile use. I use a Paralyzer on one of my bombers, along with 3 heavy hitting guns. It's not the best setup, but it's fun, and it gives the setup a chance to down fighter shields. It's either that or 2 Debs, which is pretty much the same. So where would bombers fall here?

[MarvinCZ]

I'd understand if the slots were Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun/Missile, Gun/Missile, but that's not what you're saying.

The effect would essentially be like this, just the means (coding) would be different.

[swift]

Ok, after considering it all and thinking about it some more, I voted.

The one about increasing the damage was a dilemma for me.
But in the end, having in view the great resistance of components to explosion damage which I endorse, I voted yes to the damage increase for explosives.
However, I again wish to voice my concern about having a separate public or within the dev forum discussion about the degree of the damage increase.
80 % could be too much, I do not know yet for sure, but I believe 50-ish would be enough. Balancing and testing needed there, I know the balance team finished their work from what I hear, so this should not affect the release date we await so much.


And as for the limitations for missiles, also an honest waving of options.
Some of them would have the possibility of while making it more fair, handicapping certain shipclasses, mainly Light Fighters.
Although I do not use them, I know the concern their users might feel.

I do not see the necessity of the ability to mount quad missiles though, I find it somewhat unrealistic and perhaps abuse of missiles.

I would be for the separate missile slots thing, if it is done how Mule said on the first page in response to my post.
I mean the ability to make a choice of either mounting 6 guns, or 4 guns + 2 missiles, or 5 guns + 1 missile.

If it would happen in the way of making 6 gun slots and 2 missile slots, I heavily object the idea. Because that would tell you explicitly to use missiles, else you are an idiot. Matters of choice.


Cargo requirements - Perhaps.
Missile Slots - Said in last paragraph.
Refire Rate - Yes, but not too much. Enough to make it only one missile launch per joust.
Energy Drain - If decided on, mild, as to not hinder low energy ships such as Light Fighters.

All for now..

---

<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>

[Drake]

Just as it's possible to make cruisers and battleships unable to mount gunboat turrets, even though those turrets are a lower level, I believe (and other people have said) it's possible to make fighter hardpoints which are unable to mount guns of a certain level, even though they can mount higher. If all missiles used gun levels 1, 2 and 3, then VHFs would have 2 hardpoints capable of mounting guns level 1+, the rest would only be 4+. The question would be whether the missile/gun slots would use up two of the level 10 gun slots, or whether it would use the two level 9 slots.

[gezza999]

Would CMs take cargo space as well? If so, would I be able to fit 70 CMs on as well as 70 nukes, 70 Train CDs and A Mk8 armour and still have a TINY bit of space left ( for Cardamine) on a Scimitar?

Explosives getting a boost would be fine... No clue what level as I don't use them, 1 = dead LF if unshielded is good though... 2 or 3 to kill an unshielded VHF? Or one to kill an unshielded VHF too... >_> Would make things interesting.

I'm stuck between cargo use and limiting the number of slots that can hold missiles... The number of missiles you'd be able to hold on a ship would be limited due to the size of your hold, unless, all of the missiles are held in their launchers, which seems unlikely, I doubt a Scimitar could hold the same amount of ammo as a Challenger...

Energy... maybe a tiny tiny bit, to reload it, but not much. It's got ammo already...

---

This is my signature.

[mjolnir]

@ Drake
yes that's what option 2 means. It is a good idea in general, the problem is that the implementation is very time consuming and that we'd need to remove some existing gun classes.

Would CMs take cargo space as well? If so, would I be able to fit 70 CMs on as well as 70 nukes, 70 Train CDs and A Mk8 armour and still have a TINY bit of space left ( for Cardamine) on a Scimitar?

CMs won't take cargo, only capital ship CM would.
And yes the 70 nukes, 70 CDs and Mk8 armor was thought as "necessary" for LF to make it effective. If you want missiles you still could, but for example by mounting ripper (~10k damage) instead of Nuke, or using mk 7 armor or not carrying 70 of some of them.

---

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

[swift]

Yes, I agree with Mjolnir. You need to make a tactical decision in an LF, for it is not reasonable that it has the same capacity as a bigger ship.

---

<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>

[Drake]

Yes, I agree with Mjolnir. You need to make a tactical decision in an LF, for it is not reasonable that it has the same capacity as a bigger ship.

You're trying to bring realism into the conversation. Nothing is realistic in Freelancer. A Starflier can carry, what, 20 passengers? Mk. 2 ships have more capacity than their Mk. 1 cousins, despite being the exact same size.

The question should concern balance, and a LF with 2-4 missiles is no more unbalanced than a VHF with 2-4 missiles. It's more agile, yes, but that's the whole point of flying a LF, and the reason why they have fewer guns, lower gun levels, less armor, and no torpedo. Agility matters when using missiles, but not as much as it does when using guns.

[Athenian]

No to both.
My only concern was the vulnerability of vanilla ships and that is being addressed.

---

Former member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"
Discovery Community Forum Rules