+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Community Feedback (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=627)
+--- Thread: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles (/showthread.php?tid=192259)
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Thunderer - 04-26-2022
In an age where laser weapons exist and in an environment where their beams are not diffracted by an atmosphere, long range, single fire missiles make no sense. They will easily be shot down before they reach the target because they travel for a long time and they are single. In this case, missiles only make sense as close range, fighter weapons, that will come dangerously close to their target before the defence systems are able to detect it, activate and get a lock. I see two possible solutions: either fire a lot of missiles at once, and this is indeed the strategy of modern navies and modern ICBMs that contain multiple ballistic projectiles, to thus overload the enemy's countermeasure capabilities, or implement the same technology that allows spaceships to go at near-light speed, to missiles, so they will be no slower than other weapons.
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Czechmate - 04-26-2022
(04-26-2022, 01:11 PM)Thunderer Wrote: In an age where laser weapons exist and in an environment where their beams are not diffracted by an atmosphere, long range, single fire missiles make no sense. They will easily be shot down before they reach the target because they travel for a long time and they are single. In this case, missiles only make sense as close range, fighter weapons, that will come dangerously close to their target before the defence systems are able to detect it, activate and get a lock. I see two possible solutions: either fire a lot of missiles at once, and this is indeed the strategy of modern navies and modern ICBMs that contain multiple ballistic projectiles, to thus overload the enemy's countermeasure capabilities, or implement the same technology that allows spaceships to go at near-light speed, to missiles, so they will be no slower than other weapons.
agreed
I also DEMAND that all vessels flip and burn because inertia exists in space! Report everyone who slows down nose first with engines in rear
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Thunderer - 04-26-2022
I imagine that ships have small engines all around the hull, that let them reverse, strafe and roll, but it was too hard or impossible to implement visually because FL is old. Would be nice if this was possible, though. And inertia-less cruisers are weird, let's think of some other way to make them fun than 200 m/s thrusters. SNAC that kills caps but does barely any damage to snubs goes there too
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - CommodoreShawn - 04-26-2022
Adding thrusters to ships so they can fly like airplanes is, from a realism standpoint, nonsense. Games like Elite and Star Citizen only do it because they want the WW2 dogfight style gameplay.
In the Honor Harrington books missiles were tipped with bomb-pumped lasers, giving them substantial standoff capability. Unfortunately I don't think such a thing is really possible in freelancer.
Perhaps part of what's needed to make missiles and torpedoes more viable in Disco is to make CM's less good. Right now they are so useful as to make taking them mandatory. It's a one stop shop for countering any disengagement as well as heavy missiles / torpedoes.
Also, perhaps fighters should get one or two "heavy" mounts that could carry missiles (or guns) while still letting them keep their mandatory CD?
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Binski - 04-26-2022
(04-26-2022, 09:59 AM)Novascova Wrote:Binski Wrote:I think it would be better for the average fighter to get 4 - 6 missiles at most, but have a high projectile speed, turn rate and damage (enough, or almost enough to 1 hit kill an average armored fighter).Yeah no, sorry that would not be good.
Well, not sure if you think I mean launchers. One launcher is fine, 4 missiles as max ammo would be way more realistic too. I'd rather land most of those missiles, have a 'sure thing' but only get very limited tries. Otherwise it's always a missile spam on both sides of useless missiles. Why bother with that?
Really, with well timed CM's and shield battery usage, you could still do pretty good. Just remove most or any shield damage from the missiles. I mean, most of the time if you fire 4 CD's from the right angle, they hit the target properly. Give it those same parameters. Make having a bit of shield or not the real trick. I guarantee if you test that it would be pretty intense but not from just constant turning and gun chasing.
Also the problem is the turn rates of most smaller ships being too high in general. Fighters turn ridiculously fast, give a VHF the same turn rate as a gunboat or medium transport, and dogfighting would be way less tiring. And my theory is, easier on average players, and easier on average computer performance.
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - James Greed - 04-26-2022
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Darius - 04-26-2022
Yeah, the whole autocm issue is a matter that needs fixing before any significant changes are done to the missiles. Simply turning the CM on lets you completely forget about the fact that the enemy has missiles. (with a few exceptions such as bomber novas vs cap CMs, directly facing the other cap missile, etc.)
And for the sake of (hopefully) making people quit being asshats and using that damned autocm thing (I won't argue, it has its uses in snub duels and cap vs cap duels), it can be countered by firing cruise disruptors sideways so that they arch. It is not guaranteed to stop the ship with the autocm however, with only a chance of ~70% to actually get through and disrupt the ship. Keep in mind however that the more people fire CDs simultaneously, the higher the chance is that one CD will not be countered by the CM ammo and actually get through.
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Venemon - 04-26-2022
(04-26-2022, 05:58 PM)James Greed Wrote:
You probably know it, you can shot cd without targeting ship
this kind of playstyle rewards people who play smart
and most of the time, big missiles AOE damages ships when it reaches CM
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Binski - 04-26-2022
(04-26-2022, 05:58 PM)James Greed Wrote:
Yes tug sideways a bit in either direction, then fire it.
And say they were fighter missiles, the CM's worked just fine, so it's not so crazy. So, if you only had 4 serious missiles, you might save them for the right angle, or when their shield is down, and that's for fighters. These would still only be so dangerous on larger ships.
If CM spamming is really bad, reduce the ammo. Big ships are going to be able to hold a lot of CM's, or have multiple CM launchers, etc. Snubs, not nearly as many.
As to lasers, it is a good question to ask where is the line drawn. We could put all sorts of guided weapons in, lasers, etc. It could be done but probably have limited range and take the place of a flak cannon (anti missile laser). Or, actually make a dedicated anti-missile missile. Sure it could be done but then it just goes on. Cuz then it warrants more guided lasers to take out the anti-missile missles!
RE: Community forms: Feedback on the current state of missiles - Fab - 10-03-2023
Revisiting this thread, all main issues surrounding missiles are tuned and tweaked for v5.0. Over many iterations, missiles have reached (and their countermeasures) a state where they work with each other and are fun to play with. I expect missiles to become the norm and not a meme build next patch. Thanks everyone for voicing their concerns. Yes, I did pester @Haste without end so he could make missiles fun and not a gimmick. - I hope everyone enjoys the new missiles and their balance starting this Friday.