Forums » Suggestions
You know, I started looking into some of weapons used on today's military aircraft and started to question the practicality of weapon availability in Vendetta's arsenal. Let's start out with fighters.
S-port weapons belong into the fighter class ship, obviously. However, we have very little choice of what type of rockets and missiles we can load up on--one of each to be exact, sadly. Why don't we have a wider range of missiles to choose from? Today's modern fighter can be equipped with a wide range of air-to-air missiles. Why does Vendetta only have Geminis?
Here's my proposal on the new range of weapons for fighters:
Geminis (heat seeking class): Up the agility/speed a little more, or give it higher damage instead. I suppose you can call these the futuristic version of the AIM-9. They should be hard to maneuver and should require heavy evasive action. Ships with a smaller heat signature (alien or stealth special ships?) should have an easy time dodging these. Also, ships with heavy engines would produce more heat, making them an easier target. Ironicaly a bus with a light engine should actually have an easier time to dodge Geminis due to the lower heat signature. Cool, eh?
Hellfires (laser-guided class): Aim your reticule at the target, fire away, and anywhere your reticule is pointed, these rockets will follow. The missile should have a high velocity and a moderate turn rate. The proximity detonator on this weapon should be kept low for obvious reasons. However, any skilled pilot who can "paint" their target long enough while dodging enemy fire should be rewarded with this high-damage missile.
HARMs (radar-guided class): These missiles would work the same way as heat seekers, except they would look for radio signals instead of heat signatures. If the target vessel has his radar turned on, the radar signature will be at its highest, allowing for the missile to narrow down on its target very easily. If however the enemy vessel finds that he is being targetted by a HARM, he can choose to turn off his radar (future release feature?) and be able to dodge the missiles quite easily. I think this would be a very fun weapon to implement in Vendetta, because players should be able to dodge these missiles easily... but only at the expense of shutting out radar systems. They can be a great diversion tool for ambushes.
Sunflares (contact-only weapon): Say goodbye to rocket rammers. There's a class of rockets available in today's military called hyper-velocity rockets. Take the Hydra-70 for example. What are they exactly? They're essentially rockets without an explosive. Think of them as high-speed javelins that shred up the enemy craft through physical contact. They should take up zero energy, have a high velocity (maybe same as current railgun), and a pod should hold up to 20 or so of these. This weapon would be a pirate's dream, allowing them to hold a close pursuit without any significant loss in energy.
For those interested in the Hydra-70, take a look at this website:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hydra-70.htm
You can see pictures of the hyper-velocity rocket pods on a helicopter at the bottom of the webpage. It's a very interesting weapon that's still being used, even on A-10 Warthogs and Harrier fighter jets.
It should be noted that each of these missiles should have a distinct particle trail effect to help the victim figure out what course of action they should take to avoid being hit by them. Using your wits should in fact save you more in this case than raw dodging skills.
As for bombers and frigate class ships, I think having L-port heat seekers and rockets is a bit redundant and unnecessary. Seeing as how these ships are very hard to maneuver anyway, how effective would rockets and seekers be unless you have the intention to ram someone? Instead, I think there should be a "swarm" class of each one of the above weapons. Heavy ships still need a huge boost in defense, and one of the most effective weapon we have now are the Locust swarm missiles. So I think it would be an interesting change of pace to remove the current L-port rockets and missiles and replace them with a swarm of laser, radar, and heat seeker class type. Mines, plasma cannons, and gatling turrets should remain since they seem very appropriate for low agility ships.
What do you guys think?
S-port weapons belong into the fighter class ship, obviously. However, we have very little choice of what type of rockets and missiles we can load up on--one of each to be exact, sadly. Why don't we have a wider range of missiles to choose from? Today's modern fighter can be equipped with a wide range of air-to-air missiles. Why does Vendetta only have Geminis?
Here's my proposal on the new range of weapons for fighters:
Geminis (heat seeking class): Up the agility/speed a little more, or give it higher damage instead. I suppose you can call these the futuristic version of the AIM-9. They should be hard to maneuver and should require heavy evasive action. Ships with a smaller heat signature (alien or stealth special ships?) should have an easy time dodging these. Also, ships with heavy engines would produce more heat, making them an easier target. Ironicaly a bus with a light engine should actually have an easier time to dodge Geminis due to the lower heat signature. Cool, eh?
Hellfires (laser-guided class): Aim your reticule at the target, fire away, and anywhere your reticule is pointed, these rockets will follow. The missile should have a high velocity and a moderate turn rate. The proximity detonator on this weapon should be kept low for obvious reasons. However, any skilled pilot who can "paint" their target long enough while dodging enemy fire should be rewarded with this high-damage missile.
HARMs (radar-guided class): These missiles would work the same way as heat seekers, except they would look for radio signals instead of heat signatures. If the target vessel has his radar turned on, the radar signature will be at its highest, allowing for the missile to narrow down on its target very easily. If however the enemy vessel finds that he is being targetted by a HARM, he can choose to turn off his radar (future release feature?) and be able to dodge the missiles quite easily. I think this would be a very fun weapon to implement in Vendetta, because players should be able to dodge these missiles easily... but only at the expense of shutting out radar systems. They can be a great diversion tool for ambushes.
Sunflares (contact-only weapon): Say goodbye to rocket rammers. There's a class of rockets available in today's military called hyper-velocity rockets. Take the Hydra-70 for example. What are they exactly? They're essentially rockets without an explosive. Think of them as high-speed javelins that shred up the enemy craft through physical contact. They should take up zero energy, have a high velocity (maybe same as current railgun), and a pod should hold up to 20 or so of these. This weapon would be a pirate's dream, allowing them to hold a close pursuit without any significant loss in energy.
For those interested in the Hydra-70, take a look at this website:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hydra-70.htm
You can see pictures of the hyper-velocity rocket pods on a helicopter at the bottom of the webpage. It's a very interesting weapon that's still being used, even on A-10 Warthogs and Harrier fighter jets.
It should be noted that each of these missiles should have a distinct particle trail effect to help the victim figure out what course of action they should take to avoid being hit by them. Using your wits should in fact save you more in this case than raw dodging skills.
As for bombers and frigate class ships, I think having L-port heat seekers and rockets is a bit redundant and unnecessary. Seeing as how these ships are very hard to maneuver anyway, how effective would rockets and seekers be unless you have the intention to ram someone? Instead, I think there should be a "swarm" class of each one of the above weapons. Heavy ships still need a huge boost in defense, and one of the most effective weapon we have now are the Locust swarm missiles. So I think it would be an interesting change of pace to remove the current L-port rockets and missiles and replace them with a swarm of laser, radar, and heat seeker class type. Mines, plasma cannons, and gatling turrets should remain since they seem very appropriate for low agility ships.
What do you guys think?
I think you have some good ideas.
I think there is alot of room for more missile weapons in Vendetta and I think the main reason we don't have more is more weapons isn't a priority right now. I have quite a few suggestions on the toys page, including a radar guided version (rather than radar seeking which is what you describe).
I also think that while modern combat is dominated by the ability to fire (and avoid) guided weapons, it would be bad for game play if that became Vendetta's dominating feature. I've always felt that guided missiles take no skill to use, and have an absurdly high skill curve in learning to avoid them. You've heard my position before, so I won't reiterate it in detail.
That said, you still have some good ideas. I particularly like the idea of a 'laser guided' weapon that you have to paint the target to get it to hit. That would be insanely difficult enough and require enough skill to make a good seeking weapon worth while.
I also think something like a HARM could be cool assuming we actually get passive and active modes to radar and so forth as I've talked about elsewhere.
I don't feel the need to get rid of sunflares. And I should note that a hypervelocity rocket would be functionaly similar to a 3.2.0 railgun. Pirates dream, eh? I'd say so. As you describe them, what advantage would a railgun have over them? Of course, the present railgun implementation sucks, but that's a different topic.
I don't think that you should remove jackhammers, screamers, and manta rays. They seem fine. The plasma cannon is sub-optimal and the L slot needs more options especially in direct fire weapons, but having access to rockets and seekers (although the seekers suck do to poor guidance) doesn't seem to be a problem to me.
The biggest problem with more swarms is that swarms mean more objects created simulataneously, and more objects in sector, which means more pressure on the bandwidth. I think the number of swarm weapons should be kept to a minimum for practical reasons.
I think there is alot of room for more missile weapons in Vendetta and I think the main reason we don't have more is more weapons isn't a priority right now. I have quite a few suggestions on the toys page, including a radar guided version (rather than radar seeking which is what you describe).
I also think that while modern combat is dominated by the ability to fire (and avoid) guided weapons, it would be bad for game play if that became Vendetta's dominating feature. I've always felt that guided missiles take no skill to use, and have an absurdly high skill curve in learning to avoid them. You've heard my position before, so I won't reiterate it in detail.
That said, you still have some good ideas. I particularly like the idea of a 'laser guided' weapon that you have to paint the target to get it to hit. That would be insanely difficult enough and require enough skill to make a good seeking weapon worth while.
I also think something like a HARM could be cool assuming we actually get passive and active modes to radar and so forth as I've talked about elsewhere.
I don't feel the need to get rid of sunflares. And I should note that a hypervelocity rocket would be functionaly similar to a 3.2.0 railgun. Pirates dream, eh? I'd say so. As you describe them, what advantage would a railgun have over them? Of course, the present railgun implementation sucks, but that's a different topic.
I don't think that you should remove jackhammers, screamers, and manta rays. They seem fine. The plasma cannon is sub-optimal and the L slot needs more options especially in direct fire weapons, but having access to rockets and seekers (although the seekers suck do to poor guidance) doesn't seem to be a problem to me.
The biggest problem with more swarms is that swarms mean more objects created simulataneously, and more objects in sector, which means more pressure on the bandwidth. I think the number of swarm weapons should be kept to a minimum for practical reasons.
what are manta rays Celebrim??
cheers
cheers
Yeah, what ARE manta rays? Did the devs give you one of their "experimental" weapons?
those seem like good ideas, arolte.
so basically the hellfire would be like the rocket launcher in half-life.
cool! :D
so basically the hellfire would be like the rocket launcher in half-life.
cool! :D
Manta ray = 3.1 lv2 homing missile = 3.2 stingray
"Manta ray = 3.1 lv2 homing missile = 3.2 stingray"
Duh. Yes. That's it.
Duh. Yes. That's it.
well, if you look at the number of aces in the past wars. youll notice since the advent of those weapons, its fallen drastically(i think the last ace was in the vietnam war and there were only like 2-3 of them). Do we really want the kind of place where we are firing BVR and OTH missles?
dragos: I agree with you. The skill curve is so steep, and the reponce so subject to the slightest of errors in reflex, that it is unlikely that there would every be alot of aces in hypothetically air war between equal sides with guided missile technology.
But, before we make this case too strongly, we first have to admit that the primary reason for the declining number of aces is the declining number of pilots, aircraft, and foes since the WWI-WWII era. There is simply less oppurtunity to make aces.
But, before we make this case too strongly, we first have to admit that the primary reason for the declining number of aces is the declining number of pilots, aircraft, and foes since the WWI-WWII era. There is simply less oppurtunity to make aces.
Yep, and most air wars these days are up against foes with piss-poor air forces like Yugoslavia and Iraq. What's the last war you remember with a good air-force on both ends? World War II maybe?
maybe the falkland war (sea harrier against mirage I, i think). or the korean war (f-100 super sabre against mig-17 fishbed?). don't pin me down on aircraft names, i tend to forget them.
but anyway. beyond-visual-range-missiles are not really practical for the game concept vendetta has (single-seat spacecrafts), as they require target acquisition while possibly having to engage in close combat, so they need a twin-seated craft. and being the co-pilot can become dull at some point. single-pilot target management is hard to cope with, especially if the pilot has to dodge incoming fire while firing the weapon.
the sidewinder make-likes could be further advanced: lock-on probability e.g.:
if fired from within a 90° arc behind the targeted ship, they could have a 95% lock-on possibility, from within 180° it could be 70-95% and from everywhere beyond that, it could be 50-70%. it would prevent from just shooting missiles at a target blindly to keep it occupied. it's a dogfight!
the hellfires sound good to me.
the harm missiles could have a catch to it: not fire-and-forget, but you have to keep locked on to the target (keep it on the hud) until the missile hits.
about switching off your radar: works with passive radar seeking, but with active homing, this turns obsolete. this could really turn into a tech war.
but anyway. beyond-visual-range-missiles are not really practical for the game concept vendetta has (single-seat spacecrafts), as they require target acquisition while possibly having to engage in close combat, so they need a twin-seated craft. and being the co-pilot can become dull at some point. single-pilot target management is hard to cope with, especially if the pilot has to dodge incoming fire while firing the weapon.
the sidewinder make-likes could be further advanced: lock-on probability e.g.:
if fired from within a 90° arc behind the targeted ship, they could have a 95% lock-on possibility, from within 180° it could be 70-95% and from everywhere beyond that, it could be 50-70%. it would prevent from just shooting missiles at a target blindly to keep it occupied. it's a dogfight!
the hellfires sound good to me.
the harm missiles could have a catch to it: not fire-and-forget, but you have to keep locked on to the target (keep it on the hud) until the missile hits.
about switching off your radar: works with passive radar seeking, but with active homing, this turns obsolete. this could really turn into a tech war.
actually, even if you didnt include WW2, the numbers are relatively deminishing.. from korean->veitnam->gulf->gulf take 2
most of the historians and aces of prior wars adn current fighter jocks that ive asked and others have asked where where ive seen the results agree that its due to BVR and OTH missles.. you should actually see a higher ace/pilot ratio when you have heavly unblanced airforces in terms of aircraft
most of the historians and aces of prior wars adn current fighter jocks that ive asked and others have asked where where ive seen the results agree that its due to BVR and OTH missles.. you should actually see a higher ace/pilot ratio when you have heavly unblanced airforces in terms of aircraft
*cough* Top Gun *cough*
;)
;)
I think a cool way to enhance missile selection with less work is a seperately selected "delivery system" and warhead.
The DS is more or less the engine and guidance system
some DS that would be cool:
aformentioned tracking systems
"slam" missile (low speed low manuver until 2 secs after launch then it explodes turning the warhead into a 450m/s shell) great for stoping fleeing ships
More TBA
The warheads could include:
shaped charge (common today these deliver insane damage but only on a direct hit)
high explosive (like what we have now, explosion and splash)
acid (more damage that he but over time)
The DS is more or less the engine and guidance system
some DS that would be cool:
aformentioned tracking systems
"slam" missile (low speed low manuver until 2 secs after launch then it explodes turning the warhead into a 450m/s shell) great for stoping fleeing ships
More TBA
The warheads could include:
shaped charge (common today these deliver insane damage but only on a direct hit)
high explosive (like what we have now, explosion and splash)
acid (more damage that he but over time)
What i would like to see is a pure fuel missle.
No warhead.
It starts with a lot of fuel, then slowly loses fuel as it goes, the more fuel it has when it hits, the bigger an explosion it makes, if you ram with it your screwed, if you use it as if it was a flare, your still screwed.
No warhead.
It starts with a lot of fuel, then slowly loses fuel as it goes, the more fuel it has when it hits, the bigger an explosion it makes, if you ram with it your screwed, if you use it as if it was a flare, your still screwed.
I still like your idea of variable acceleration. Longer it goes, slower the missile goes. Or maybe the opposite--missiles are released, they drift away from the ship slowly, and then they fire off. That may very well cure rocket ramming!
The acceleration idea was used as an example for all energy weapons.
It starts going really fast, then slows down to normal speed. (i beleive it started at 1.5)
It starts going really fast, then slows down to normal speed. (i beleive it started at 1.5)
Does anyone else get annoyed by the fact that a retreating person's rockets are not as effective as the attacker's?
If you are running away, your rockets go at 55m/s- your speed. If you are advancing, they go at 55m/s +your speed. So a Valk chasing you can fire off flares as 155 m/s while yours are going anywhere between 30m/s or even 0m/s. As if the Valk needed any more help dodging.
I know you're supposed to charge before firing them, but by the time you build up a reasonable speed they will be in your face and ramming you.
I think a standard speed on rockets (sunflares and hammers basically) would fix a lot of rocket ramming problems. A straight 55-60m/s for them. Homing missiles and torpedoes can stay the same though since their speed is relatively unaffected by the firing craft's anyway.
If you are running away, your rockets go at 55m/s- your speed. If you are advancing, they go at 55m/s +your speed. So a Valk chasing you can fire off flares as 155 m/s while yours are going anywhere between 30m/s or even 0m/s. As if the Valk needed any more help dodging.
I know you're supposed to charge before firing them, but by the time you build up a reasonable speed they will be in your face and ramming you.
I think a standard speed on rockets (sunflares and hammers basically) would fix a lot of rocket ramming problems. A straight 55-60m/s for them. Homing missiles and torpedoes can stay the same though since their speed is relatively unaffected by the firing craft's anyway.
I'd like to clarify a few ideas from my first post; some of which I neglected to mention:
The way I pictured these weapons to be used was to be for visual range only. In other words they would work under the same range as Geminis. It wouldn't be practical to have missiles fly all the way across the sector when there are so many potential obstacles that would prematurely set the fuse off. In addition that, someone who spams a whole bunch of these extremely long range missiles will also lag the server out, which is not good. I also think that it wouldn't be fun to have missiles coming at you from miles away without knowing who fired 'em or whatever. It just isn't fun.
Because of the increased damage and speed of these new proposed missiles, the proximity should be lower than that of the current Sunflares. Players also shouldn't have the option of holding 16+ missiles within each pod. Otherwise everyone will fly around and missile spam each other to death. Missile pods should have a similar capacity to that of modern jet fighters. An F-16 doesn't have the capability of hold 16 missiles per port, for example. If these missiles are to be fired singularly, then each pod should only have 4-6 missiles available.
These are weapons which are to be used sparingly, and with tactics in mind. If you do manage to hit your target, however, they will be feeling a lot of pain. In other words they should have similar damage to a single or double gauss projectile, but not something as high as an Avalon torpedo or something as weak as the current Gemini missiles. What they lack in numbers and difficulty of usage, they make up in damage. So don't think that having a small port capacity will make them completely useless.
Using missiles should also be all about timing. You don't see fighter pilots missile spamming their targets today, do you? No, they wait for the right opportunity. It shouldn't be as easy as hitting the fire key and killing your enemy. You'll have to distract or put your enemy in a position where they'll have trouble dodging the missiles. It should be all about timing and tactics.
Anyway, that's all I've got to say, if that'll help shed any light to the debate.
/me walks away before he gets flamed
The way I pictured these weapons to be used was to be for visual range only. In other words they would work under the same range as Geminis. It wouldn't be practical to have missiles fly all the way across the sector when there are so many potential obstacles that would prematurely set the fuse off. In addition that, someone who spams a whole bunch of these extremely long range missiles will also lag the server out, which is not good. I also think that it wouldn't be fun to have missiles coming at you from miles away without knowing who fired 'em or whatever. It just isn't fun.
Because of the increased damage and speed of these new proposed missiles, the proximity should be lower than that of the current Sunflares. Players also shouldn't have the option of holding 16+ missiles within each pod. Otherwise everyone will fly around and missile spam each other to death. Missile pods should have a similar capacity to that of modern jet fighters. An F-16 doesn't have the capability of hold 16 missiles per port, for example. If these missiles are to be fired singularly, then each pod should only have 4-6 missiles available.
These are weapons which are to be used sparingly, and with tactics in mind. If you do manage to hit your target, however, they will be feeling a lot of pain. In other words they should have similar damage to a single or double gauss projectile, but not something as high as an Avalon torpedo or something as weak as the current Gemini missiles. What they lack in numbers and difficulty of usage, they make up in damage. So don't think that having a small port capacity will make them completely useless.
Using missiles should also be all about timing. You don't see fighter pilots missile spamming their targets today, do you? No, they wait for the right opportunity. It shouldn't be as easy as hitting the fire key and killing your enemy. You'll have to distract or put your enemy in a position where they'll have trouble dodging the missiles. It should be all about timing and tactics.
Anyway, that's all I've got to say, if that'll help shed any light to the debate.
/me walks away before he gets flamed
I definitely think you have the right idea, Arolte. I agree with everything you've said so far. I will be interested to see how the new AI affects homers though... if they are no longer fooled by the strafe'n spin trick geminis would be a lot harder to dodge. I also think having a lower ammo capacity and higher damage would be a good idea.
Speaking of real life parallels, I wonder if having something like a Tomahawk cruise missile would work. I know it would be going against the whole BVR thing, but it could traverse sectors in search of a target that was painted by another ship. It would probably have to be a capital ship weapon; the missile would be fairly slow and easy to dodge, but would have a payload similar to the avalon.
Speaking of real life parallels, I wonder if having something like a Tomahawk cruise missile would work. I know it would be going against the whole BVR thing, but it could traverse sectors in search of a target that was painted by another ship. It would probably have to be a capital ship weapon; the missile would be fairly slow and easy to dodge, but would have a payload similar to the avalon.