(09-19-2013, 05:40 PM)Blodo Wrote: You have Heavy CM for caps etc. that still functions the same way it has with its high range and stuff. Most transports can fire it just fine as well.
Yes, but you just changed everyone who had a 1,000 meter @ 85% efficient CM that could fire 3x faster than the Heavy CM into a 650 meter @ 80% efficient CM. I don't recall what the lifetime of the Enh. CM was, but I think it was more than 2 seconds. Some of us like throwing out a ton of CMs when you have half a dozen Train CDs being spammed at your Transport/Capital ship. Also, I take it these new CMs are meant to deal with CDs as well and maintain the same efficiency against those?
Perhaps this should be spawned off into a different thread, but I'd propose a separation of snub/freighter CMs and Transport/Capital CMs, or at least having a separate line that you could mount on a Transport/Capital so that you can more effectively choose between dealing with CDs or missiles. Right now you just changed a generic CM into a specified CM set without consideration of any alternative uses the generic CM had.
(09-19-2013, 12:55 PM)Blodo Wrote: This is sadly impossible at this stage because there's only two modes of damage that missiles/guns can be set to: either shield damage being half hull damage (normal) or no hull damage/full shield damage (pulse). It's an engine limitation.
(09-19-2013, 04:57 PM)Blodo Wrote: Sentinel CM Dropper:
(high range (1000m), low effectiveness (65%), high lifetime (5 secs), 80 ammo)
Just reporting on this one: It works.
I was fighting Kilian, who likely was also sporting that one. We were dodging/cming missiles pretty well.
It actually put some element of strategy into the game because you have to pay attention when your shield is down and you have to make sure to catch that missile because the consequences if hit are bad.
Quote:The general consensus with me and every other pilot marginally better than a sack of hammers is that we don't want 'em, get rid of them and keep fights skill based rather than fear based.
I am "marginally better than a sack of hammers" and I like missiles and where this is going (even though there has to be fine-tuning).
Of course those who are good want to preserve their huge margin of advantage by keeping out the weapons that would allow people with less skill to inflict damage to them. I understand that.
But that will not make missiles disappear after they have finally been fixed.
Better adapt and learn that there is skill involved (evasion and cming, ressource management, etc) and with fine-tuned missiles, there will be also some skill required in launching them at the right angles, times, etc. There actually is already at the moment.
The spam-and-win approach that you see at the moment is just a consequence of "no shield bubble" bug that makes shields too hard to drop by guns for anybody who has no top aim, so people just go "f... this, missiles away!". But this will change.
having well auto aimed missiles in a really close combat will be OP in all cases and having CMs that make well auto aimed missiles useless in close combat is much more stupid idea its too fast for the FL gameplay due to laggy update
also I like idea of damagin hull only if there's no shield around or it is at about 10% of charge
did you prohibit trade of missiles in space? if no, spam is guaranteed (havent checked 487 lol)
(09-19-2013, 07:21 PM)GrnRaptor Wrote: Yes, but you just changed everyone who had a 1,000 meter @ 85% efficient CM that could fire 3x faster than the Heavy CM into a 650 meter @ 80% efficient CM. I don't recall what the lifetime of the Enh. CM was, but I think it was more than 2 seconds. Some of us like throwing out a ton of CMs when you have half a dozen Train CDs being spammed at your Transport/Capital ship. Also, I take it these new CMs are meant to deal with CDs as well and maintain the same efficiency against those?
Perhaps this should be spawned off into a different thread, but I'd propose a separation of snub/freighter CMs and Transport/Capital CMs, or at least having a separate line that you could mount on a Transport/Capital so that you can more effectively choose between dealing with CDs or missiles. Right now you just changed a generic CM into a specified CM set without consideration of any alternative uses the generic CM had.
You forget that there are 3 types of CM and you can mount all of them in your capship. Just go and mount another type, you can get it from any base and there's a type that has 1000m range. Go and test them first as well, even though their main use is not supposed to be on caps, but on fighters who deal with stuff on much smaller ranges.
Also I can think about buffing heavy CM somewhat considering that it uses a bit of energy to fire and whatnot.
//edit
Works in SP just tested it, missile cant go by shield, but smash hull badly when shield is off
Doesn't work in MP however due to reasons unexplained (as in, it works on NPCs but not on player ships). At least didn't last time I checked. Blame the FL engine for such weirdness, it's not the first weird thing we've uncovered while testing properties of missiles and how they behave differently in regards to players and NPCs. Any energy_damage above 0 will simply have the gun treated as a pulse gun with no hull damage applied.
There's a very easy way to check this for yourself: technically the paralyser missile will deal 196 hull damage per hit. Go and launch a few at a shieldless friend online and see if he loses any hull. Must be player not NPC.
(09-19-2013, 07:21 PM)GrnRaptor Wrote: Yes, but you just changed everyone who had a 1,000 meter @ 85% efficient CM that could fire 3x faster than the Heavy CM into a 650 meter @ 80% efficient CM. I don't recall what the lifetime of the Enh. CM was, but I think it was more than 2 seconds. Some of us like throwing out a ton of CMs when you have half a dozen Train CDs being spammed at your Transport/Capital ship. Also, I take it these new CMs are meant to deal with CDs as well and maintain the same efficiency against those?
Perhaps this should be spawned off into a different thread, but I'd propose a separation of snub/freighter CMs and Transport/Capital CMs, or at least having a separate line that you could mount on a Transport/Capital so that you can more effectively choose between dealing with CDs or missiles. Right now you just changed a generic CM into a specified CM set without consideration of any alternative uses the generic CM had.
You forget that there are 3 types of CM and you can mount all of them in your capship. Just go and mount another type, you can get it from any base and there's a type that has 1000m range. Go and test them first as well, even though their main use is not supposed to be on caps, but on fighters who deal with stuff on much smaller ranges.
Also I can think about buffing heavy CM somewhat considering that it uses a bit of energy to fire and whatnot.
//edit
Works in SP just tested it, missile cant go by shield, but smash hull badly when shield is off
Doesn't work in MP however due to reasons unexplained (as in, it works on NPCs but not on player ships). At least didn't last time I checked. Blame the FL engine for such weirdness, it's not the first weird thing we've uncovered while testing properties of missiles and how they behave differently in regards to players and NPCs. Any energy_damage above 0 will simply have the gun treated as a pulse gun with no hull damage applied.
There's a very easy way to check this for yourself: technically the paralyser missile will deal 196 hull damage per hit. Go and launch a few at a shieldless friend online and see if he loses any hull. Must be player not NPC.
Well I did test it now in Conn, gave to someone paralyser and asked for few shoots, I did get hull dmg as well as equipment dmg, so... it works, but you then say it dont work - then I shouldnt get any dmg to anything, so how it is in FL reality in the end?
And I think explosion radius also have things to say when it comes to question of given/received Dmg
And yet another thing, you can kill someone when using pulse guns it will take long time but it will happen, ofc said pulses need to have at least a few hull dmg per shoot, Question is if missiles are any different in this case considering my test.
Another things are armours, hipothetical pulse gun with 1 hull dmg will be turned by armor to something like 0.X dmg,
becouse as you ofc know armours dont multiply hull points but just reduce damage, Question is if FL engine can operate on numbers below 1 dmg in this case, this question is out of curiosity, it have little to do with missile/gun with more dmg doing/not doing anything.
Ok well I'll need to test it myself again then it seems like. I was pretty sure it didn't work last time I checked it, but it could've been I mixed it up with our tests on missile direct damage as opposed to explosion radius damage.
But ok lets assume for now that we can change it and it works. I'd rather fix the shield bubble problem first before we reduce missile damage on shield, I see missiles with a role roughly similar to mines where you can use them either on shield or on hull however you want. It's not ruled out though, another idea that we had is to do something about fighter shields so that shield bat recharge could be used a few more times (probably less capacity/more recharge or just simply more shield bats on fighters, one of the two) so that shield bats could be used as a last ditch defence against an attempted missile ram. If we decided to adopt that as a tactic, it would be useful to reduce missile shield damage yes.
Reducing missile shield damage heavily in current state (even assuming that shield bubble problem is fixed) however only means that people who mount missiles will be far more predictable (you'll only need to expect them when you lose shield), and in fighter PvP IMO hard counters just make things boring. But feel free to argue against that.
(09-20-2013, 05:33 PM)Blodo Wrote: Ok well I'll need to test it myself again then it seems like. I was pretty sure it didn't work last time I checked it, but it could've been I mixed it up with our tests on missile direct damage as opposed to explosion radius damage.
But ok lets assume for now that we can change it and it works. I'd rather fix the shield bubble problem first before we reduce missile damage on shield, I see missiles with a role roughly similar to mines where you can use them either on shield or on hull however you want. It's not ruled out though, another idea that we had is to do something about fighter shields so that shield bat recharge could be used a few more times (probably less capacity/more recharge or just simply more shield bats on fighters, one of the two) so that shield bats could be used as a last ditch defence against an attempted missile ram. If we decided to adopt that as a tactic, it would be useful to reduce missile shield damage yes.
Reducing missile shield damage heavily in current state (even assuming that shield bubble problem is fixed) however only means that people who mount missiles will be far more predictable (you'll only need to expect them when you lose shield), and in fighter PvP IMO hard counters just make things boring. But feel free to argue against that.
I wont argue in this case I just wanted to show that it is possible and it works, and I agree with your ideas and consider pointed out problems important to deal with.
Considered giving hull dmg only, to fighter torps?
(09-20-2013, 05:54 PM)Lamare Wrote: Considered giving hull dmg only, to fighter torps?
Well it would certainly make them different from missiles, that's for sure. It sounds like a decent plan though, make torps deal decent damage (slightly lower than mini razor) with marginal tracking ability (which makes up for the lower damage), low ammo limit and hull only damage. The only issue would be possible missile + torp synergies which may be OP, but I imagine one way to solve it would be to apply not just different tracking but lower speeds for torps which means that hitting with both a missile and torp at the same time is unlikely (though in certain cases possible).