Ballistic Weapons

[Laerethe]

I don't think bullets would do any difference to caps, caps are already op it would've an even fight:laugh:
But I mean, the disadvantages would work like this:

1) If it's high energy consumption, you'll be only able to fire in short bursts, and you'll have to do it fast before he shield regens, then it gets annoying again.

2) If it's ammo consuming, you would have to rationate it, like missiles, which I find to be pretty good as a missile player, though, running out of it would be REALLY annoying:laugh:

3) if it's got low shield damage, you simply don't use it all the time, you could use debs and then change to the ballistic one, but it would just waste your energy anyways.

I guess those thing would balance it, just like plasma weapons.

And for being stationary.....No....Just ..no.
It would HEAVILY screw up fighters with those, most of the time they're just jousting, and the game's pretty odd, you can be standing still, yet you get a 1m/s speed, so it can mess up and never shoot anything.

You forgot Homeworld and BSG:D

Caps aren't OP, but fighters are. Any half decent fighter can maintain 1k distance from a cap; at that range, if you're any good, you shouldn't be getting hit. You can always pop 2k away and the cap can't hit you with his secondaries/solaris.

Caps shouldn't be shooting at fighters, and fighters shouldn't be shooting at caps.

1. If there is more than one of you, the shield regenerating isn't a problem. Chances are he's already dead.

2. What's important is to make sure it works like energy and not missiles, in the sense that missiles fften disappear/fail during lag.

3. Implying that fighters would use it. We don't want a couple of fighters killing battleships. Leave fighters to kill fighters.

In regards to the stationary comment - we don't want to have these super-duper anti-hull weapons on our fighters. They shouldn't be attacking capital ships. I'd say reserve it for Battlecruiser+; two versions, scaled like mortars but far less energy efficient.

[Luka]

I actually gave out those disadvantages as general, for both fighting against fighters and caps, not just caps

the first one is for REALLY short burst, being mostly eating someone's else hull, but you'll have to aim for it or wait to recharge if you wnt to get his shield down again.

what I meant with the second one is about ammo, you would have to rationate it so you would run out when in a big fight and lose gunpower, for both fighters and caps, it works just like any other gun.

and the third one is pretty much what you said, but you would lose firepower, in fact a LOT of firepower when not shooting straight to hulls, like 2 guns or so just to get his shield.


....Wait did you just say fighters are overpowered and caps UNDERPOWERED??? SERIOUSLY?:shok:
Um....dude fighters are all around not just dogfighters, those are interceptors, fighters are all-around.

[Klaw117]

Personally, I think ballistic weapons should be compensated for with either low shield damage or high energy costs (if they're magnetically accelerated instead of being propelled by gunpowder). I feel like any weapon, even energy-based, is going to need ammunition. Think about it, energy-based weapons just fire a blast of particles that have been energized. Plasma fires energized gas; tachyon, particle, neutron, photon, laser, and pulse all fire some kind of energized subatomic particle. There must be a container of gases and subatomic particles stored on ships that are used to fire energy-based weapons. Therefore, even energy-based weapons must use some kind of ammo, unless my reasoning of physics and chemistry is flawed. If it's not flawed, then I think it should give a reason why ballistic weapons shouldn't be limited by in-game ammunition requirements.

---

Carlos Rivera: Corsair Brotherhood Pirate - Retired, shifted to Tripoli Shipyard's Research and Development engineering teams
Anthony Cameron: Guild Core Bounty Hunter - Killed in Action, committed suicide after being trapped in Omicron Minor following its destruction
Juan Ruiz: Outcast Ghost of Razgriz Pirate - Killed in Action, killed by the Sirius Coalition Revolutionary Army during Bretonian piracy raid
Michael Winchester: Liberty Security Force Agent - Missing in Action, likely killed during Rheinland espionage mission or trapped in Rheinland Space
Eric McCormick: Order Pilot - Retired, shifted to planetside training of new recruits

Liberty and Nomad Backstory, Very interesting - read it!

[Cosmos]

I still dont understand why they don't add Shotgun weapons.

imagine the Flak turret but 10x smaller and 0 shield damage.

---

[22:50:33] ☆ҳ̸̲Ҳ̸ҳEternal†Nightmareҳ̸̲Ҳ̸ҳ☆(illi): i cyber with leather torps (smoking)

[Luka]

Personally, I think ballistic weapons should be compensated for with either low shield damage or high energy costs (if they're magnetically accelerated instead of being propelled by gunpowder). I feel like any weapon, even energy-based, is going to need ammunition. Think about it, energy-based weapons just fire a blast of particles that have been energized. Plasma fires energized gas; tachyon, particle, neutron, photon, laser, and pulse all fire some kind of energized subatomic particle. There must be a container of gases and subatomic particles stored on ships that are used to fire energy-based weapons. Therefore, even energy-based weapons must use some kind of ammo, unless my reasoning of physics and chemistry is flawed. If it's not flawed, then I think it should give a reason why ballistic weapons shouldn't be limited by in-game ammunition requirements.

You really took the words from my mouth:laugh:

That's exactly what I was thinking of the high energy consumption, I think the tachyons and all those things are pair produced in a particle accelerator mounted on the gun (except lasers, emp and photons, they're just light).
But would be a nice justification of the high energy consumption ballistic weapons: since they work entirely on kinetic energy, they need more mass and speed, dereby using a lot of energy on pair producing them and more for the railgun/gauss cannon.

I'm still keeping the option of ammo though, some people may think it makes no sense.

@Halo I think that's a really cool idea;)
I think it would be like a short range flak that hits harder than anything, but it has really short range and wastes lots of energy, else everybody would try to ram and shoot.

[Stefz]

I still dont understand why they don't add Shotgun weapons.

imagine the Flak turret but 10x smaller and 0 shield damage.

Exactly what I wanted to say. Make fighter flaks that would have the same effect as capital ship ones aka pushing your target away. Fights would be more dynamic instead of just fly straight or slide, shoot, ek, fly straight or slide, shoot, ek, etc...

---

[massdriver]

-> 30mm MK108 with high explosive shells on your snub, Rip your favorite enemy hull to hell. YAY!

-> Say 4 debs/ 2 cannons should be a good antifighter combo.

-> imo projectile weaps should be powerful (about 1k-2k hull damage) has more than 70 ammo (150-200)
and probably shield should only absorb 20-30% of damage(possibly required some flhook or client side magic here) as well as speed about 1k-1,5k m/s, 3.03 rate.

-> As for flaks, just look at Black Prophecy, players use them a lot 'cos it's a WIN weapon even if it has low damage low fire rate and slow like hell, flaks just compensate bad aiming, 2-3 flak snubs on your ass will gank you in a few seconds. And making them too weak, grants snub flaks useless position. Probably good idea as a bomber weapon against GBs and annoying shield running snubs.

Anyway all snub balance points me to those questions (here I talk about group fights):
if all snubs are identical(ship, loadout, player exp., tactics, inet connection),
1) how much snubs I can kill before death?
2) how long can I fly my snub having 1,2,3 snubs on my ass?

playing for a long time here my answers are:
1) max 1 (typically by mine spam)
2) 0

Making more powerful snub weaps will give snub more chances to survive big group fight and eliminate enemies more effectively.

---

[Adam_Spire]

Unless you're going to have some LBX20 or AC10 gun, you're going to make the server cry processing all those little bullets.

The only ballistic gun I loved in a space sim was the Storm Fire gun in Wing Commander 4 (NOT the one in WC5).
It had the perfect sound effect and was very fast. The graphic was nothing more than a small yellow line that looked more like a tracer than a bullet, but it was effective for aiming the gun.

I'd get those.

---

Sometimes, when all you want is to gain your freedom, you must be willing to risk it all.

[Luka]

Unless you're going to have some LBX20 or AC10 gun, you're going to make the server cry processing all those little bullets.

Oh, I'm right now thinking of a maxim from Freespace 2:laugh:, I guess fighter guns would work like that