Fighter Explosives (missiles + torps and mines) Poll

[zeinstruktor]

I think mines should have around a 20k damage output... You can rarely hit with one against a LF, at least make it so they die in one hit.

[Drake]

@ Drake, well it depends on your point of view yes, some people would say that if LFs can't mount full nukes, armor and some missiles they are too weak, while others complain about getting "LF whored" and thing the other way... that's basically while we are making this poll.

I think the last problem we have is an over-use of light fighters. When the BAF (which has pretty clunky VHFs, all the more reason to make use something more maneuverable) got together in a fleet of 13 during an event, we had all of 2 LFs. I don't think the KNF & Friends had any. LFs just aren't that popular.

[ProwlerPC]

Good point made recently about not knowing what is a good damage increase. I did fail to state whether I agreed to full %80 dmg increase to missiles. I can't exactly say I can crunch up the balancing number to give an acurately balance percentage increase though so I can only hope and trust that if damage is increased the numbers get calcualted.
I also believe in my position about cargo restriction and I don't believe it will make guns the preferred choice because the missiles don't use energy and guns do. It becomes a decision of Missiles with less cargo or guns with less energy. (still options between using payload or energy based equip on torp mount)
I believe we will lose too many combat possibilities if we start severely limiting what our ship's options are, but if we introduce a give-take relation ship between using missiles and guns, I feel we will lower the "missiles are best" we got now and yet still maintain the full array of combat possibilities.

---

[mjolnir]

I think mines should have around a 20k damage output... You can rarely hit with one against a LF, at least make it so they die in one hit.

The damage increase numbers are based exactly after that:

LFs should die to 1 Nuke... so 2.5 * armor of most armored LF = 17k

---

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

[Unseelie]

Final result is about the same yes, but the implemenation differs a lot,

- you need to remove all guns of that class

- you need to change hardpoints on ALL fighter class ships (~200) and you need to change ALL their infocards

=> about 200-300 hours of editing :$

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.

---

[Divine]

Well, I voted against making Explosives dealing more damage; personal reasons, I have a issue with the randomized use of especially Nuke Mines and Missiles.

But i would like to see a combination of 1., 2. and 4. coming:
1. Introducing cargo space requirements
2. Limiting number of slots that can carry missiles as well as guns
4. Making explosives use energy when fired/dropped

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=151485
Time left: (Permanent)

[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?

Well I thought on that ... and sounds stupid, i know... But then again.. I am for leaving choice to people. Personally, I like 2 missile slots per ship (or even 1 in HFs and LFs ) but then again, that limits people choice to put whatever they feel putting on. I wouldn't fly missile ship with more than 2 missiles... But i can't blame people that want, and i can't stop them by switching to 2 missile slots. That is why i said .. do couple reverse gun/missile slots. I think that ships will be in very few hands because it can be easily killed with simple CD and still people will have choice what to fly... AGAIN, personally, i think that 2 missile slots are enough, but that is only my opinion, i know that some (small , imho) number of people would be unhappy when only 2 missiles could be mounted on ship... And we can't afford to ruin game for them by limiting choices.

Skoko

---

<blockquote>Was member of : [LN] [LR] [RoS] Keepers (NovaPG) [AU]

[SA]-Jake.Benson - Benson's life
Alvaro Himenez of [RoS]- Alvaro's story</blockquote>

[skoko]

Well, I voted against making Explosives dealing more damage; personal reasons, I have a issue with the randomized use of especially Nuke Mines and Missiles.

But i would like to see a combination of 1., 2. and 4. coming:
1. Introducing cargo space requirements
2. Limiting number of slots that can carry missiles as well as guns
4. Making explosives use energy when fired/dropped

Yes that is your opinion, i understand that, but then again, if you have power to do it ... would you be willing to do that kind of changes and ruin game for like 70% of people on server that can use Nuke mines ?

That is my point , you can and it is good that we all write our opinions , but try to think on others and "globally" what impact would that changes have on Freelancer as game and on Discovery idea .

This kind of problems balancing team faces always when they need t make happy as many people here as they can.

---

<blockquote>Was member of : [LN] [LR] [RoS] Keepers (NovaPG) [AU]

[SA]-Jake.Benson - Benson's life
Alvaro Himenez of [RoS]- Alvaro's story</blockquote>

[gekerd]

I voted for the missile slot, I have one question though. Will it be possible to mount guns in these slots?, because people who use guns only now would have a disadvantage else.

---

[Markam]

im heavily for limited weapon slots for missiles, being a 1 missle user since forever, and i'd even say that bombers should have no missile slots whatsoever, having already ample capability with two torp slots, so theres a something a VHF/LF has over a bomber.

Though il admit to being biased, and even if they have 1-2 missile capable slots, I will at least never have to see those 4 missile (cb+sw+fs+para) inferno/SN bombers anymore.

explosives im afraid i dont have a clue, a nuke will always cause much hurt regardless, but if it is as said, and the componant strength is quite high, then i'd be for some kind of increase, or a maybe just lower componants a bit.