I am not even sure I should be answering you but I will humour you this time.

1 - Refuted only if you artificially make the melee weapon stronger. While your human to human argument might hold, I want to point out that the difference between guns and knives is not limited to range. A tiny bullet packs way more of a punch than you could ever with a knife. A 9mm has a devastating force behind it.

2 - I don't know why this point has you spitting with range. Just that in my experience I try to stay a bit further away from the AGT+2flares prom. Yes you can ram them, not sure how much of a great idea it is.

3 - I find the whole lance concept "silly" because to me it feels like something artificial withing the artifices of the game. Why would a short range beam be so much more devastating than a charged plasma ball? Sure you can come up with an explanation but to me it has never felt as justified, in any game.

4 - Who said about historically never useful? It has even been used in WW2 when desperate pilots without ammo decided to take an enemy with them. Still I do think that it has been made somewhat obsolete.

5 - You might interpret this as you wish, but I have never claimed that my word is any truer or valid than anyone else's. This is my opinion and I am entitled to having it. I really don't see what your problem is, or why is it that you feel that you have to personnally attack me, nor why do you even think you have the right to do so.

Your (1) is answered already; see my (3).

Your (2) is so narrow as to be useless.

Your (3) is recockulous: all sorts of strange stuff goes into this Sci-Fi game and any logic involved is fuzzy at best. But since you insist: unlike a packaged burst of energy, which has to be stable enough to, say, fly to the target, a lance uses a more powerful (hence damaging) form of raw energy. While this only allows for damage within the narrow 50m stream, contact with the stream will do X damage per Y unit of time of contact. That deals with the whole "why is it more devastating" issue. But in fact, it is not "more devastating": it's just different. If you sit there and let it burn through your hull, sure, it's really nasty. But the fact is that just like projectile weapons, a lance will do some damage per "hit": as long as the pilot is able to maintain the distance and attitude necessary for contact. So, what exactly were you smoking here? I want some.

Your (4) may or may not be currently accurate re: obsolescence. What you need to try to wrap your mind around is that as technology evolves, melee weapons fade in and out of utility. Just because we have no way of giving tanks melee weapons now doesn't mean that an evolution in technology might not make them relevant again. Obsolete isn't something that applies to an idea (melee weapons); just a brief incarnation of said idea (trireme rams).

Your (5) ignores what I said: I don't give two shits as to what opinion you feel like having. But when you say "that's silly" and it's readily apparent that no objective reason for your harebrained feeling exists, pointing out the disjunct is important to helping others place your opinion, to which you are duly entitled, in the proper place (which would be the trash bin). And until I cross that grossly subjective line in the sand that "Be Nice" demarcates, I have the "right" to say what I wish about you and your opinions. Whistler (or some other incarnation, pun intended, of the powers that be) will just get annoyed and mute me (again) or delete my account or IP ban me or whatever if I cross over. Feel free to take your wounded sensitivity in that direction.

This whole idea is pretty phallic ... just imagine a ship with a laser hard on ramming another up the rear. I can see the write ups now!

However, if they face each other ...... then .....
.... may the *shwartz* be with you!?!?!

[EDIT] Can 2 beams hit each other ... like swords? Or is it more like ghost busters ... don't cross the streams!

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, jack. If an energy beam damaging the posterior hull of a ship makes you think 'anal reaming', maybe it's just your own lil' thang going on there? Moreover, if you think of your phallus as a weapon for damaging your enemy... I'd say you have serious issues. Say it with me now: 'This is my rifle, this is my gun... this is for fighting, this is for fun!'

As for the sword issue, we've sort of discussed this. It seems like programming a beam that can block other beams (think light-saber) would be mucho difficult. Add to that the fact that dodging and evasion, rather than trying to use a ship to parry, would be the best defense... and I think the lances could be treated the same way energy hitting energy is now. Each passes through the other and carries on its own merry way.

DrLecter: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, jack..."
... and sometimes it's not ... just ask Monica.

I think it would be neat if there was feedback when the beams hit. If not damage, then maybe bouncing the two adversaries apart 50m. Would really add to the skill level.

Don't argue with the flesh-eating lawyer, Zed.

Indeed not, sometimes it's fun to be an arse yourself though ;).

I agree with Zed. I believe "ship to ship" melee weapons are just a ridiculous reminder how ridiculous combat can be in VO.

Lets look at muzzle velocity, or the speed of a munition:

Long Bow: 45 mps (meters per second)
58 Springfield Musket: 289.56 mps
M16 Assault Riffle: 853 mps
M!A! Main Gun: 1575 mps

Neutron Blaster (energy weapon): 200mps

Ok. I know VO weaponry is closer to the speed of an arrow fired from a long bow than a bullet being fired from an M-16, but can we try and perhaps go forward with technology? I thought on of the main benefits of going to "energy weapons" was to have a projectile that can approach 1c (aka the speed of light). Is space in VO filled with "cesium gas heated to about 212 degrees Fahrenheit"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801683.html

Try playing Vegastrike as a comparison then. Their guns are pretty fast (close to insta hit).
I don't think it's more fun that way.

Here's a thought ... why not just let mining lasers be offensive weapons. Similar range, same theory. While reducing the opponent's health (due to heating the hull or something) it could actually put some kind of ore into your cargo bay from all the metal in the hull.

Mining beams have a range of about 100m and act in a 360 degree radius (well 360 is the plane, how do you refer to that in 3d?)

It would be too overpowered IMO. Unless you make the damage REALLY low

I still think this is a silly idea. I mean, come on. How come we don't equip tanks with double-bladed giant battleaxes on mechanical arms? Or equip F-15's with wingtip whirling sabres of doom?

Because it's better to pop your enemy from a distance and not become covered in his blood and spattered with his gore. Plus, it's more hygenic.

Although, I WOULD be for some kind of grappling hook which you spear into your enemy's ship. That would be kinda fun.

Ok, I'm dealing with this one for the last time now. The fact is that current weapons in VO do not make closing and maintaining distance to within 50m particularly dangerous. That's a fact. Compare that with the relatively fragile F-15 or the relatively ineffective melee weapons available to us now and less than agile tanks. No, at this juncture in our technological evolution, melee weapons are not all that useful. In VO, however, they surely would be. In addition to being able to close and maintain melee distance is the fact that someone without a melee weapon is all but helpless if you do so and have one. Gods save the rag or taur pilot who tries to rely on rockets or guns or even an AGT if I'm in an IBG with a lance ripping into their hull: they sure as Hell can't shoot me very well.

What I've been stressing as a meta-point is that a concept never gets made obsolete. If tomorrow the armies of the world began equipping infantry with a second-skin body armor that hardened in reaction to impact forces (how bullets and shrapnel tend to work), but had little resistance to sharp puncturing attacks, you'd see some resurgence in melee combat. In fact, such is already the case in a limited sense: though I cannot kill someone wearing a decent vest by shooting them in the heart with a handgun, I most surely can drive a combat knife through the kevlar (assuming a lack of those bulky ceramic plates). This is only a limited issue because body armor is currently limited to the skull and the torso. As it evolves into more comprehensive and lighter forms, things that go through it will again become "cutting edge", if you'll pardon the pun. Antirelic hasn't struck me as overly bright during our ingame interactions, but even he must understand how stupid the argument that "we must never use a melee weapon again" if we want to "move forward technologically" sounds. Progress is constantly about taking old ideas and adapting them to current contexts via new technology: it's called innovation.

My narrower point is that melee weapons, given the nature of the VO universe, are technologically useful again, because of the fact that one can safely close to melee range and stay there, and that while one is there non-melee weapons are significantly less effective if not useless (flare arming distance, anyone?). Why not just shoot your enemy? Many reasons: first, you may be a lousy shot but a good pilot; second, you may want this as a close range option if you find yourself bumping into your opponent frequently; third, your culture may value such up close and personal tactics; fourth, the nature of the skills employed, pure piloting, may appeal to your culture.

When it comes down to it, since ships frequently close to melee distance, and have real trouble shooting eachother while that close, what is silly is the lack of some option for exploiting that fact. The AGT is such an option, sorta. But really, given the fact that this is a *game*, there's no real limitation on what technology we "can" make. Energy lances are just are plausible as energy guns: the only issue is, would they make any sense? Since it's clear that you can close to melee range and stay there quite safely (the flare/agt prom may be an exception for most people, but maybe not... I never had a reason to try that death defying stunt before, so I'm not sure about it), why would there NOT be a weapon to cover that situation?

I love the idea of having 'ranged weapons'. The more range, the better. If Rails could be improved and increased in range, I'd be for that too (to a point).

The really obvious opposite of a railgun should be somekind of shotgun or sword.

Close range weapons are hugely ignored in this game, I think I would enjoy taunting someone to come closer.

Gauss are cqb weapons.

That said, comparing VO to today's vessels of war is silly.

They have energy lances in EV Nova.
Its not something new. Not the best weapon in EVN but works fine.
Do VO really need energy lance weapon is another thing.