Capital Ship Missiles

[Qunitinius~Verginix]

We have the most serious issue to discuss. Today, durring the combined raid of Several Pirate groups, we were ecountered by several gunboats all equiped with all missles Turrets. These gunboats are not equiped in a way that would be how a ship in Role-play would equip themselfs, this is a laod out that would be used by a person who only cares about PvP and thats it.

I am proposing in LImiting missle turrets on all capital ships

Gunboats; 2

Cruisers; 4

Battleships; 5

Something like this is basically unfair to everyone they fight and is basically exploiting the weakness of fighters.

Another thing, are Miners allowed to have Gunboat turrets? I dont think so.

This is open to Discussion. Post what you think.

Verginix Out

---

[Dab]

If we allow capships with any amount of missiles they want fighters will become even MORE obsolete than they are. They will be cannon fodder on battlegrounds and first to fall. And fall easily. Fighters are already used barely. If this were done by everyone than they wouldn't ever be used. This isn't CapshipLancer, and shouldn't be used that way.

---

[OsoRojo]

QV come on, I was nailed several time by the Blood Dragon Cruiser in said raid, which had the same config (a whole bunch of missiles) and I went down fair and square. Don't regulate the game to death.

OsoRojo


P.S. was in a fighter

[Dab]

I had 4 missiles on an 8-turret loadout. Misfit had ALL 5 guns as Missile turrets in a GB that can turn almost as well as fighters.

Remember how it took 30 seconds to kill you? Misfit can kill a fighter in 5 seconds or less through missile spamming.

Don't even try to compare the two ships.

---

[Koolmo]

I don't think any regulation is needed, if everyone moves to capships, then people will stop using fighters. If people stop using fighters, capships will stop mounting missles. If capships stop mounting missles, people will use fighters again. Its a cycle.

If the larger ships missle turrets could turn slower, and the GB ones did less damage, this problem would be lessened.

---

<span style="color:#FFFF00">&quot;General Solo, is your strike team assembled?&quot;
&quot;Barely, they're pretty drunk.&quot; </span>
SCRA Recruiting--SCRA Feedback--SCRA Message Dump--SCRA Faction Status

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

[Dab]

Koolmo, that isn't a solution. We don't want or need a cycle. We need everything to be used equally. I love using fighters, but I use one once a month now because everywhere I go I'm spammed by missiles or run into a ship I can't take the shield down of.

---

[Craines]

Having a limit to missiles? On the [KND]_deLuna I have four, so it would fit in to QV's regulations...

However, I feel that you should be able to fit whatever you want on your ship, assuming it is both within RP (corsair turrets should not be used by anyone who isn't a Corsair, or Order turrets by anyone not an Order...ling? Orderer? Whatever. That's just my opinion, of course) and you have a reason for it.

And while fighters might go down quickly, I can personally attest to the fact that any cap ship that only has missile turrets will become EXTREMELY vulnerable to, well, anything that isn't a fighter. So it's trading in one strength for a weakness; should we limit the amount of any particular weapon? You can't have more than two Nomad blasters! I feel that it detracts from the game when others govern how many weapons you can or cannot have.

Once again, just my opinion.

Also, I will fight vehemently against having any rule imposed that would limit the amount of missiles I can equip, as I find them very, very helpful when doing missions. One salvo from my missile banks and the enemy has been destroyed!

Just wondering, what is everyone's stance on, say, having a battleship equipped solely with flak turrets...?

---

[fwolf]

I agree with Verginix, but battleships should have no more than 4, instead of 5.

Anyway, missiles spend more energy than cruiser turrets. So, equip all slots with missiles is stupid. You cant have a good recharge configuration with missiles.

Fighters are more intended to give support to bigger ships in such battles. Problem is that there is a "culture" where people want only capships to feel themselves superiors.

[Koolmo]

Dab, the cycle is an example, I don't think it'll actually happen that way if people realise that as soon as their GB does near a capship, it'll go boom.

Noone will restrict someone from mounting all infernos and flacks, so why restrict other specialised loadouts? They're inneficient in the long run.

---

<span style="color:#FFFF00">&quot;General Solo, is your strike team assembled?&quot;
&quot;Barely, they're pretty drunk.&quot; </span>
SCRA Recruiting--SCRA Feedback--SCRA Message Dump--SCRA Faction Status

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

[Craines]

So then, should we also limit the amount of weapons that are extra-effective against certain shields? No more than two weapon-per-effectiveness, therefore 6 guns and 6 turrets can be used?

Is using something effective against one kind of shield to be considered exploiting it's weaknesses, or can we aptly say that it is using strategic advantage? Is you're getting bitten by mosquitoes, is using bug spray against the rules, or common sense?

I ask that you excuse my literary metaphor; fighters are not mosquitoes, nor do they suck blood, so please, no flames intended. I'm just saying, some slow and ponderous (such as a capital ship) requires something quick and effective in order to make up for it's slow speed.

Everything has it's own strengths and weaknesses; warfare is about how you use these to your own advantage. And if that means 'missile-spamming', then so be it.

Again, as always, this is my own opinion.

(Please note, I am not trying to flame anyone's ideas or views, I'm just trying to present my case, if you will allow my occupation's terminology. This is indeed a serious matter, and I am not trying to belittle anyone's cause, but I do believe that this boils down to a very general impairment of freelancing rights. If I want 10,000,000 missiles to shoot out of my ship, then don't I have the right to that? I mean, sure, you'd have to find a ship like that first... but still, the point is validish.)

EDIT: I just read the last bit about "this is a laod out that would be used by a person who only cares about PvP and thats it" and I was appalled. So, here is my response to it (in a non-confrontational manner).

Yes, PvP can be augmented heavily by a load out of this type. However, *I* use this load out quite often; does that mean that *I* only care about PvP? If so, please inform me so that I can go and engage some > level 40s. In the event that I do not, in fact, care only about PvP, do not make generalized statements.

In the words of Sir Arther Conan Doyle, one exception to the rule disproves it. So while I can see how people who use this load out could be considered PvP lovers, that is not always the case.

Also, I indeed do have a great RP reason for only using missile turrets. Anti-fighter gunboat. Kinda like an anti-aircraft unit in almost every other game... ever. Necessary in order to remove the major opposition; i.e. the small little crafts that can sting like an enraged hornet. So please, everyone, do not make rash generalizations.

Again, not flaming, just saying.

Still Harley's own opinion.

---