Hello everyone, not sure if suggested before, if so, point me to that post.
Today I'd like to discuss the thought of siege guns, extremely powerful heavy turrets that deal massive damage at a slower than usual speed.
Yes, you heard me right. MASSIVE DAMAGE. Boy, that sets off a big red alarm, doesn't it?
Well, you're wrong, because the projectile should be so slow that it would be stupid it to use it against anything but a stationary target (Or at point blank range).
Think about it. A BS Heavy Turret that goes at 100 M/S, does 3x the damage of a Heavy Mortar, and takes around the same/less energy than one?
Sure, at point blank range or when the capital ships are all too stupid to dodge the projectiles, maybe it'd be overpowered. But those fights are really messy anyways, so why not?
The weapons are meant for base sieging, so capital ships can sit and fire these snail speed weapons at whatever base they're up against. And before you say it would take too long for the projectile to hit, that base isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
And I'd like to bring up the thought of these weapons for gunboats, so they can fill some sort of more powerful role against bases and larger capital ships (Still must be dangerously close or have the opponent be a total retard), at the expense of practically losing a turret or so for shooting at snubs.
Leaving aside the whole pvp issue, devs WANT base sieges to require huge fleets and take ages. Thats the POINT. They're meant to take as much effort to destroy, as to create. If the Devs WANTED base sieges to be easier, dont you think theyd just reduce base regen rate?
The only useful varient of a siege gun I can think of, is one that doesnt affect the speed a base siege much, but does reduce the number of projectiles fired, so the server crashes less. For instance a gun with the DPS and energy usage of 2 Cerb turrets, but a very slow refire and projectile speed. Maybe the range of a morter, if you want to encourage its use against bases with turrets too.
All that said, remember its the devs who want long base sieges not me, Id personally like some bases that are both easier to build and destroy, maybe keep core 4 as it is, but reduce cost/health of lower cores.
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
Then we should reduce how hard it is to make and how hard it is to kill.
Bases are unbalanced right now.
I still think there should be a special siege ship/siege weapons (expensive as hell to get or rare or something)
(08-11-2013, 03:41 AM)Hone Wrote: But why do you think its balanced?
It'd be balanced because the projectile would be bloody slow and ineffective against anything that moves. I.E, everything except for bases.
I'm just saying that a weapon with higher damage output, perhaps a small hit effect, and a very slow speed would both reduce server lag during sieges and help speed up the base shooting process.
Did you actually read my post or just see that line?
I specifically said I was leaving aside pvp, and that the devs dont want (or need a special gun to facilitate) to reduce sieges.
P.S: In case you dont understand by pvp I mean player vs player, not player vs base. Im talking about how it would (be percieved to) unbalance base sieges, not pvp fights.
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
(08-11-2013, 04:01 AM)Hone Wrote: Did you actually read my post or just see that line?
I specifically said I was leaving aside pvp, and that the devs dont want (or need a special gun to facilitate) to reduce sieges.
P.S: In case you dont understand by pvp I mean player vs player, not player vs base. Im talking about how it would (be percieved to) unbalance base sieges, not pvp fights.
Mobile sucks. Sorry. I'd split your post up into little bits but...yeah.
How do you know that the devs don't want or need a special gun to reduce sieges? Where do you get that information from? I'd like to know, because I am quite curious. Legit.
Why would this be overpowered for base sieges? Shields reduce most of the damage anyways, so it's still a miniscule amount of damage that would get through, albeit a little more than a typical HM or Cerberus turret.
It really wouldn't speed up base sieges by too much if you think of it, I feel it should be there to fill a role and also help facilitate all this lag we had when the Order tried to smite the base in 74.
I get that devs dont WANT to reduce base sieges, from the multitude of posts complaining about base sieges, from both sides, and the devs answers that they're supposed to require as much work to destroy as to create. There are many topics about it, a search in the rules section would probly be easiest, but its not fun diving into those threads.
I get that they dont NEED a special gun for it, because they could achieve the same effect with much less work, by simply reducing base regen rate or shield blocking.
As I said in my OP.
As for why it would be overpowered, if you have a gun that does 3X the damage of a morter, but requires less power, then you need less than a third of the original number of ships firing morters. Making something over 3X easier is rather a large difference dont you think?
And thats not even taking into account the scenario where you have the SAME number of ships as before, only now they ALL have siege guns. I dont know if you know this, but base siege time/attacking DPS does not scale linearly;
If you need 10 ships for their DPS to match a bases regen, and you have 11 ships attacking, then you only have 1 ship actually DAMAGING the base. Thus you dont need 22 ships to double the amount of DAMAGE your 11 ships are doing, and therefore halve the time it takes to die, you only need 12.
Only the last 2 ships are doing damage.
Therefore your 11 ships with your 3X+ effective weapon are not just killing a base 3X as fast: As it only takes 3 of them to match its regen now, the other 8 can focus on DAMAGING the base, and remember each one is 3X+ as effective.
Congratulations your "Not OP" weapon now kills bases 24 times as fast!
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
(08-11-2013, 05:24 AM)BLACKWIDOW Wrote: also bases should be harder to kill not easier
This is where I disregarded your entire post.
Nonetheless, Hone, if a couple of ships show up to defend a base, and all the BSes have siege guns on, the defenders can sit at a range and pound the siegers into oblivion, since you have to be really slow to get hit by a 100 MS projectile at 2.4k out.
Think about it, say you're sieging a base with say, 11 Dunkirks. They all have their Heavy slots stuffed with siege guns, so they can go home and eat earlier. Then, a fleet of Ranseurs show up. Full cerbs and prims. Now what? The Kirks can try to get in range for Prims, but the Ranseurs will have taken chunks out of the Kirks by now, and without suitable heavies, the Kirks end up screwed. Anally.
And there's always room for suggestions here, it doesn't HAVE TO have less energy than a mortar, hell, it could take 2x as much power as a HM for 3x damage, or just 2x damage and a massive speed nerf, if it makes you sleep at night.
That's the thing with a suggestion, nothing is set in stone. Community feedback and other inputs can help shape the idea into something we all agree with. At least, that's how I look at it.
Yes, if the base is well defended, the attackers will get boned, but thats already the case, earlier the BAF fleet consisting of about 4 dessies 3 BSs a Gb and several snubs, attacking coin, was killed by the molly defenders consisting of about 3 snubs and a single dessie.
In fact your point doesnt matter anyway, because all the kirks would have to do is have a heavy mortar on their rear firing heavy slot, which they wouldnt use on the base anyway, and there'd be no difference to the pvp.
Its the midnight raids where no-one notices/can get on for a few hours that are the problem.
And now that you've brought up pvp, lets take a look at that shall we. Have you heard about those valors/legates ect that like to uncloak right behind enemy caps? Now imagine one of them with 3 3X+ as effective mortars (Now the most efficient BS weapon in the game BTW) and unloading them all instantly. A 100 m/s speed wont mean anything when you're only 100 meters away from your target and they dont know you're there.
Id also point out that this weapon would make weapons platfroms useless for defence, as the most efficient weapon would now outrange them.
I know this is a suggestion, and Im not against either a siege gun, or faster base seiges, as you can see I said in my OP. Im just pointing out how this varient is not needed/balanced.
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
![[Image: PFjFVMW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/PFjFVMW.png)
![[Image: discosig_zps7bb5682f.png]](http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj640/Hellhuntercomb/discosig_zps7bb5682f.png)
