Forums » Suggestions
No I don't. Dr. Lecter needs to make his own armor piercing weapon suggestion post instead of spamming unrelated links.
This is a mini piloted nuke. Highly explosive, high area damage, high concussive force. This is not a precision armor piercing weapon that flies at speeds higher than 340m/s. Suggestion posts can be made that way --->
The non-proximity detonation was only suggested to handicap the weapon by requiring precision piloting to effect the damage. It was not suggested for the purposes of explaining the specific method by which the damage is delivered, as Rin and Dr. Lecter would seem to prefer it does.
I get that there is a contingent of VO players who turn their noses up at any weapon that doesn't require precision marksmanship to effect damage. And by get, I mean I acknowledge they exist. However I don't understand why that same group of people seem to think that larger group combat strategy isn't a good thing for this game. Adding a weapon of this type would ONLY serve to make capship battles more interesting. I've heard no specific examples thus far that explain why a weapon of this type would be a negative.
The only complaints so far have been unsubstantiated opinions:
-Damage is too high. My answer: you can't pose a damage risk to a capship without having high damage. If you don't want anti-capital ship weapons fine, but you can't have an anticapship weapon that doesn't pose a threat to a capship, which is effectively what nerfing the damage down will do.
-Current Avalons are sufficient. My answer: Swarm Rags are more efficient, more readily available and cheaper to attack an active TTM with than anything holding an avalon. People bring avalons to a TTM fight either a) out of a false notion that it's going to cause significant damage, which it of course does not or b) they are trying to splash damage the escort, who, if they possess any combat knowledge whatsoever, will see the avalons coming from far away and steer clear.
-Splash is too big: No reason given why the splash was too big other than "plain silly". I assume it's because some people don't like dying by anything that isn't fired directly at them through a reticle. A sentiment that many seem to carry about homing missiles. Many of these people are long time VO supporters, and I really feel they harbor a disconnect between their desire for the one thing that makes VO awesome (more group play), and the potential type of group play VO can (and does) offer. Personally I find the thought of huge PVP battles with people only firing off low-damage direct-hit weapons completely and utterly boring. Even more boring and pointless is slowly hacking down a TTM with energy, only to see it escape into an empty sector once the armor has gotten low enough.
Incarnate and his team have gone to great lengths to introduce items into this game to diversify what combat means, and create avenues for new strategies to be developed and taken advantage of. Yes, it's a twitch-based game, but that doesn't mean larger-concept weapons that deal indirect impacts shouldn't be added to open up another layer of risk and depth to the VO experience. In the same way that we have to avoid enemy's mines, so too would you avoid being annihilated by a Strangelove Avalon: see it and move, or see it and shoot it down. Proximity mines deal a small amount of damage and thus have a small blast radius, TU mines deal a much larger amount of damage and have a much larger blast radius; a larger, more explosive avalon would follow this already existing and well established precedent for increased blast radius. I see no existing weapons type in VO that illustrates Rin's assertion that larger damage explosive weapons should have smaller splash radii than their lesser variants.
This is a mini piloted nuke. Highly explosive, high area damage, high concussive force. This is not a precision armor piercing weapon that flies at speeds higher than 340m/s. Suggestion posts can be made that way --->
The non-proximity detonation was only suggested to handicap the weapon by requiring precision piloting to effect the damage. It was not suggested for the purposes of explaining the specific method by which the damage is delivered, as Rin and Dr. Lecter would seem to prefer it does.
I get that there is a contingent of VO players who turn their noses up at any weapon that doesn't require precision marksmanship to effect damage. And by get, I mean I acknowledge they exist. However I don't understand why that same group of people seem to think that larger group combat strategy isn't a good thing for this game. Adding a weapon of this type would ONLY serve to make capship battles more interesting. I've heard no specific examples thus far that explain why a weapon of this type would be a negative.
The only complaints so far have been unsubstantiated opinions:
-Damage is too high. My answer: you can't pose a damage risk to a capship without having high damage. If you don't want anti-capital ship weapons fine, but you can't have an anticapship weapon that doesn't pose a threat to a capship, which is effectively what nerfing the damage down will do.
-Current Avalons are sufficient. My answer: Swarm Rags are more efficient, more readily available and cheaper to attack an active TTM with than anything holding an avalon. People bring avalons to a TTM fight either a) out of a false notion that it's going to cause significant damage, which it of course does not or b) they are trying to splash damage the escort, who, if they possess any combat knowledge whatsoever, will see the avalons coming from far away and steer clear.
-Splash is too big: No reason given why the splash was too big other than "plain silly". I assume it's because some people don't like dying by anything that isn't fired directly at them through a reticle. A sentiment that many seem to carry about homing missiles. Many of these people are long time VO supporters, and I really feel they harbor a disconnect between their desire for the one thing that makes VO awesome (more group play), and the potential type of group play VO can (and does) offer. Personally I find the thought of huge PVP battles with people only firing off low-damage direct-hit weapons completely and utterly boring. Even more boring and pointless is slowly hacking down a TTM with energy, only to see it escape into an empty sector once the armor has gotten low enough.
Incarnate and his team have gone to great lengths to introduce items into this game to diversify what combat means, and create avenues for new strategies to be developed and taken advantage of. Yes, it's a twitch-based game, but that doesn't mean larger-concept weapons that deal indirect impacts shouldn't be added to open up another layer of risk and depth to the VO experience. In the same way that we have to avoid enemy's mines, so too would you avoid being annihilated by a Strangelove Avalon: see it and move, or see it and shoot it down. Proximity mines deal a small amount of damage and thus have a small blast radius, TU mines deal a much larger amount of damage and have a much larger blast radius; a larger, more explosive avalon would follow this already existing and well established precedent for increased blast radius. I see no existing weapons type in VO that illustrates Rin's assertion that larger damage explosive weapons should have smaller splash radii than their lesser variants.
Far from being unrelated, it directly addresses the drooling idiotcy you trotted out in response to Rin:
Anything significantly stronger than an Avalon or TU should have less splash, with the higher damage achieved by focusing the explosion into a smaller area.
"I simply can't reconcile how you think something that is 10 times more explosive should have a much smaller shockwave."
Think of it this way: instead of the weapon being more explosive, the yield of the weapon remains roughly the same but shape of the blast wave is being controlled to focus its damage into a smaller area. Think shaped charges, where instead of a spherical explosion, it's conical. More of the energy is directed forward into the target, and less is wasted by radiating off to the sides.
“So you are suggesting that the force of the blast is abosrbed almost entirely by the impacted object? I don't buy it.”
You can not buy it all you want, but it's entirely common in armor piercing shaped charge high explosives: nearly the entire force of the blast is focused into an armor piercing jet that first punches through the armor of the vehicle/ship, and then exhausts the remaining force of the explosion inside the hull.
Anything significantly stronger than an Avalon or TU should have less splash, with the higher damage achieved by focusing the explosion into a smaller area.
"I simply can't reconcile how you think something that is 10 times more explosive should have a much smaller shockwave."
Think of it this way: instead of the weapon being more explosive, the yield of the weapon remains roughly the same but shape of the blast wave is being controlled to focus its damage into a smaller area. Think shaped charges, where instead of a spherical explosion, it's conical. More of the energy is directed forward into the target, and less is wasted by radiating off to the sides.
“So you are suggesting that the force of the blast is abosrbed almost entirely by the impacted object? I don't buy it.”
You can not buy it all you want, but it's entirely common in armor piercing shaped charge high explosives: nearly the entire force of the blast is focused into an armor piercing jet that first punches through the armor of the vehicle/ship, and then exhausts the remaining force of the explosion inside the hull.
I'm sorry Dr. Lecter. I must have missed your wiki link showing a thermo nuclear warhead that functions this way. All I saw was an anti-tank weapon.
The development of nukes that function in the same manner was started in the 1960s. I guess reading is hard for Itani.
"Splash is too big: No reason given why the splash was too big other than "plain silly"."
I don't need to give any more reason than that. You are the one making the proposal, not me. The burden of justification lies with you. You have not offered any reason for why the weapon should have such a massive splash radius besides your mistaken idea that high damage explosives must have large splash radii. As Dr. Lecter and I showed, dealing this level of damage does not require a large splash radius. You have not given any other reason why your weapon needs it. Why is it 800m, instead of 1200m or 400m or 30m? What purpose does it serve? If the only reason is "It's a bigger Avalon, duh!", then that would mean a splash of 527m -- ten times the volume of an Avalon's to go with the 10x damage. I'd still call that silly, but at least you'd have a reason for the number.
For comparison, the Avalon has a radius of 245m. A radius of 800m results in an explosion with 34.8 times as much volume. It is a sphere 1.6 kilometers wide -- wide enough to park two HACs end-to-end with room to spare (for a sense of scale, note that a HAC is about 62 Vultures long).
You claim that this is an anti-capship weapon. Why does it need that large of a splash to fight capships? Fighting capships is about damage, not splash.
I don't need to give any more reason than that. You are the one making the proposal, not me. The burden of justification lies with you. You have not offered any reason for why the weapon should have such a massive splash radius besides your mistaken idea that high damage explosives must have large splash radii. As Dr. Lecter and I showed, dealing this level of damage does not require a large splash radius. You have not given any other reason why your weapon needs it. Why is it 800m, instead of 1200m or 400m or 30m? What purpose does it serve? If the only reason is "It's a bigger Avalon, duh!", then that would mean a splash of 527m -- ten times the volume of an Avalon's to go with the 10x damage. I'd still call that silly, but at least you'd have a reason for the number.
For comparison, the Avalon has a radius of 245m. A radius of 800m results in an explosion with 34.8 times as much volume. It is a sphere 1.6 kilometers wide -- wide enough to park two HACs end-to-end with room to spare (for a sense of scale, note that a HAC is about 62 Vultures long).
You claim that this is an anti-capship weapon. Why does it need that large of a splash to fight capships? Fighting capships is about damage, not splash.
"You have not offered any reason for why the weapon should have such a massive splash radius besides your mistaken idea that high damage explosives must have large splash radii."
Yes I did, re-read my 4:28PM response. Prox min and Biocom mine. And there are plenty of real world examples to out-example the silly armor-piercing idea, which by the way still doesn't apply. That said, I'd be open to reducing the splash somewhat. It is a bit strange that the avalon has less splash but more damage than the TU. Perhaps the devs can educate us on this discrepancy, or Lecter can make something up.
"You claim that this is an anti-capship weapon. Why does it need that large of a splash to fight capships? Fighting capships is about damage, not splash."
I'm building upon an existing weapon that has splash, that's one reason it needs splash. Another reason is that a larger splash is effective in knocking back or eliminating any nearby escort ships -- escort ships are becoming a common occurence in player controlled capital ship support. Furthermore, if and when the devs make the turrets destructable, the splash damage will apply to that as well, as it does now on Connie and Hacs in border skirmishes. It should also be the reward for the pilot successfully landing his shot. It also adds additional risk: a larger splash increases the potential to accidently take out friendly targets, or guarded targets (if in a station sector). It's a high reward, high risk weapon. Enough reasons yet?? WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THIS? lol.
Yes I did, re-read my 4:28PM response. Prox min and Biocom mine. And there are plenty of real world examples to out-example the silly armor-piercing idea, which by the way still doesn't apply. That said, I'd be open to reducing the splash somewhat. It is a bit strange that the avalon has less splash but more damage than the TU. Perhaps the devs can educate us on this discrepancy, or Lecter can make something up.
"You claim that this is an anti-capship weapon. Why does it need that large of a splash to fight capships? Fighting capships is about damage, not splash."
I'm building upon an existing weapon that has splash, that's one reason it needs splash. Another reason is that a larger splash is effective in knocking back or eliminating any nearby escort ships -- escort ships are becoming a common occurence in player controlled capital ship support. Furthermore, if and when the devs make the turrets destructable, the splash damage will apply to that as well, as it does now on Connie and Hacs in border skirmishes. It should also be the reward for the pilot successfully landing his shot. It also adds additional risk: a larger splash increases the potential to accidently take out friendly targets, or guarded targets (if in a station sector). It's a high reward, high risk weapon. Enough reasons yet?? WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THIS? lol.
It is a bit strange that the avalon has less splash but more damage than the TU. Perhaps the devs can educate us on this discrepancy, or Lecter can make something up.
Nothing strange about a dedicated bombing torpedo using a more efficient warhead than a dedicated broad-spectrum defensive mine. You're assuming that impact damage and splash radius always have to move in lock-step, but there's no logical basis for such an assumption. Yes, all else being equal, more damage requires more stuff, which again all else being equal makes a bigger boom.
But all else is almost never equal. Warhead designs and explosive compound selection have a huge influence over damage potential independent of or even running contrary to the radius within which the blast's effects will be felt.
Nothing strange about a dedicated bombing torpedo using a more efficient warhead than a dedicated broad-spectrum defensive mine. You're assuming that impact damage and splash radius always have to move in lock-step, but there's no logical basis for such an assumption. Yes, all else being equal, more damage requires more stuff, which again all else being equal makes a bigger boom.
But all else is almost never equal. Warhead designs and explosive compound selection have a huge influence over damage potential independent of or even running contrary to the radius within which the blast's effects will be felt.
Yay, reasons!
"Furthermore, if and when the devs make the turrets destructable, the splash damage will apply to that as well, as it does now on Connie and Hacs in border skirmishes."
Sure, but do you really need so much splash that you could hit a HAC on the nose and have the explosion extend 50m past the tail? Excessive, and we don't even have player-owned HACs. A Trident Type M is only 210m.
"WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THIS? lol."
Because it's silly.
"Furthermore, if and when the devs make the turrets destructable, the splash damage will apply to that as well, as it does now on Connie and Hacs in border skirmishes."
Sure, but do you really need so much splash that you could hit a HAC on the nose and have the explosion extend 50m past the tail? Excessive, and we don't even have player-owned HACs. A Trident Type M is only 210m.
"WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THIS? lol."
Because it's silly.
Updated:
Port type: Large
Grid: 10
Energy to launch: 250
Proximity: none, direct hit detonation only (other detonation methods listed in bottom of OP)
*adjusted*Splash: 300m
Damage: 150,000 (for comparison 8 avalons stacked = 120,000)
Total Fuel: 90s
Top Speed: 215m/s
Armor: 50
Turbo: no
Strafing: disabled (pitch up/pitch down/left/right turning only)
F/A: automatically on and locked into full forward thrust, cannot disable
Mass: 2000kg
Targetable: Yes
Total ammo: 1
Purchase cost: 8 million
Refill Cost: 1.5 million
Refill locations: Only Biocom stations (NOT in capships, or conq stations, or anywhere else).
Restrictions: Minimum Biocom Standing of POS needed to buy.
*added*Repair Cost: (% of ship damaged x Purchase Cost)x1.10 (specialized mechanics fee)
*added*
You cannot dock your primary ship (i.e. via drifting and autodocking) after you have fired and are piloting the Strangelove Avalon.
Port type: Large
Grid: 10
Energy to launch: 250
Proximity: none, direct hit detonation only (other detonation methods listed in bottom of OP)
*adjusted*Splash: 300m
Damage: 150,000 (for comparison 8 avalons stacked = 120,000)
Total Fuel: 90s
Top Speed: 215m/s
Armor: 50
Turbo: no
Strafing: disabled (pitch up/pitch down/left/right turning only)
F/A: automatically on and locked into full forward thrust, cannot disable
Mass: 2000kg
Targetable: Yes
Total ammo: 1
Purchase cost: 8 million
Refill Cost: 1.5 million
Refill locations: Only Biocom stations (NOT in capships, or conq stations, or anywhere else).
Restrictions: Minimum Biocom Standing of POS needed to buy.
*added*Repair Cost: (% of ship damaged x Purchase Cost)x1.10 (specialized mechanics fee)
*added*
You cannot dock your primary ship (i.e. via drifting and autodocking) after you have fired and are piloting the Strangelove Avalon.
+1
For such an easily destroyed weapon, it should be able to do some collateral damage when IF it hits.
I may have missed this bit, but does the weapon detonate if destroyed prior to reaching it's target?
For such an easily destroyed weapon, it should be able to do some collateral damage when IF it hits.
I may have missed this bit, but does the weapon detonate if destroyed prior to reaching it's target?
no, I suggested it just explode like a normal ship in that event
Given it can be shot down and now splash is 300m, I suggest bringing back detonation on shooting.
No, leave it safe to disable. 300m is still more than I like, but low enough to rescind my -1.
I think guided torpedos are a neat game mechanic idea for future weapons, but -1 to OP stats and suggested revisions.
Nyan
Nyan
It's a little too convoluted and despite being a really cool idea is going to get yelled at by The Usual Suspects for being a new mechanic.
I'd suggest that the Strangelove Avalon be a ship in itself- a specially modified, slower Aerna Seeker that needs to be remotely piloted from a station or capital ship. If you get shot, no boom. If you manage to land the self-destruct rocket, big bada boom.
I'd suggest that the Strangelove Avalon be a ship in itself- a specially modified, slower Aerna Seeker that needs to be remotely piloted from a station or capital ship. If you get shot, no boom. If you manage to land the self-destruct rocket, big bada boom.
"I'd suggest that the Strangelove Avalon be a ship in itself- a specially modified, slower Aerna Seeker that needs to be remotely piloted from a station or capital ship."
This would be a cool idea -- I already suggested making Aerna Seekers purchasable as a kamikaze ship.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/28556
A modified version would be cool too.
The OP is, for most intents and purposes, a ship in itself. Or, at least it should appear as such in the sector sensor list and targetless, etc. The only thing that makes it not so much a ship is the inability to get a PK by kililng it. I figured the mechanic was already in place to launch ships from other ships, so why not make a cool weapon like this to take advantage of it.
I didn't really address what it looks like -- but I think it would be appropriate to have it just be a 10x scaled copy of the existing avalon.
This would be a cool idea -- I already suggested making Aerna Seekers purchasable as a kamikaze ship.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/28556
A modified version would be cool too.
The OP is, for most intents and purposes, a ship in itself. Or, at least it should appear as such in the sector sensor list and targetless, etc. The only thing that makes it not so much a ship is the inability to get a PK by kililng it. I figured the mechanic was already in place to launch ships from other ships, so why not make a cool weapon like this to take advantage of it.
I didn't really address what it looks like -- but I think it would be appropriate to have it just be a 10x scaled copy of the existing avalon.