Forums » Suggestions
--"Guys, you already *can* target warheads! Just use the { and } keys to cycle through the targets until you see "rocket008" or whatever. I'm not sure what this means in terms of shooting them down, but it seems like the devs are moving in that direction."--
Well, if you target a gemini (I think, could be jackhammers), you'll notice that the thing says "HeatSeeker-001" or something along those lines
Heat seekers used to be the lower-damage-higher-mobility homing weapon, which were "removed" a rather long time ago(along with my lovable little blue ions). I think that the devs aren't moving much in either way with the whole targeting thing, just leaving it the way it is, because no-one minds it much the way it is.
Well, if you target a gemini (I think, could be jackhammers), you'll notice that the thing says "HeatSeeker-001" or something along those lines
Heat seekers used to be the lower-damage-higher-mobility homing weapon, which were "removed" a rather long time ago(along with my lovable little blue ions). I think that the devs aren't moving much in either way with the whole targeting thing, just leaving it the way it is, because no-one minds it much the way it is.
I originally mentioned the idea of a PDS on my Full Turret thread down the line about eight threads. Here;s the URL.
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2996&page=1
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2996&page=1
I seem to recall us having this very conversation a couple months ago and Celebrim saying that there was a difference between "smart" jamming that actually hacked the missile's guidance systems and "dumb" jamming that created interference to deny the missile target acquisition.
If a missile/rocket has some onboard device that causes it to detonate when it gets within a certain range of the target, I see no reason why there couldn't be some sort of ECM that fooled the missile into thinking it was closer to the target than it actually was, thereby causing it to prematurely detonate.
If a missile/rocket has some onboard device that causes it to detonate when it gets within a certain range of the target, I see no reason why there couldn't be some sort of ECM that fooled the missile into thinking it was closer to the target than it actually was, thereby causing it to prematurely detonate.
...and the thread I was thinking of is just a few topics down! ;). Apparently we already have the technology to create an "ECM shield" to trigger shells and rockets prematurely, and it's known as SEPS, or "Short-stop Electronic Protection System"
>If a missile/rocket has some onboard device that causes it to detonate
>when it gets within a certain range of the target, I see no reason why
>there couldn't be some sort of ECM that fooled the missile into thinking
>it was closer to the target than it actually was, thereby causing it to
>prematurely detonate.
As I said before, the "E" in ECM stands for ELECTRONIC. It's an electronic device that messes with the transmission sent from the missile to the aircraft/SAM site. It has absolutely no physical bearing on the target missile whatsoever. You can't have an electronic device detonate something that needs to be physically tricked. Most proximity detonators work physically, not electronically. You literally have to do something physical to the missile, be it firing a projectile or cooking it with lasers.
And the argument here was the usage of the term ECM. SEPS is a whole different system that focuses on setting off electronically fuzed munitions. Meaning the projectile must have the capability of being detonated electronically, which is certainly not the case for all missiles. If you read up on some sources, you'll find that the main focus of SEPS is for ground units only, since mortar fire and artillery shells can be "tricked" with this system more easily than a fast-moving missile.
>when it gets within a certain range of the target, I see no reason why
>there couldn't be some sort of ECM that fooled the missile into thinking
>it was closer to the target than it actually was, thereby causing it to
>prematurely detonate.
As I said before, the "E" in ECM stands for ELECTRONIC. It's an electronic device that messes with the transmission sent from the missile to the aircraft/SAM site. It has absolutely no physical bearing on the target missile whatsoever. You can't have an electronic device detonate something that needs to be physically tricked. Most proximity detonators work physically, not electronically. You literally have to do something physical to the missile, be it firing a projectile or cooking it with lasers.
And the argument here was the usage of the term ECM. SEPS is a whole different system that focuses on setting off electronically fuzed munitions. Meaning the projectile must have the capability of being detonated electronically, which is certainly not the case for all missiles. If you read up on some sources, you'll find that the main focus of SEPS is for ground units only, since mortar fire and artillery shells can be "tricked" with this system more easily than a fast-moving missile.
Aye, some missiles are proximity fuzed while others are contact fuzed, but the *majority* of air to air missiles are proximity fuzed which rely on *electronic* signals to tell the missile when to detonate.
A good website that explains all this clearly is: http://www.ordnance.org/missile_components.htm
Read the sections labeled "Fuzing" and "TDD" about 3/4 of the way down.
A few snippets:
"TDDs are electronic detecting devices similar to the detecting systems in VT fuzes. They detect the presence of a target and determine the moment of firing. When subjected to the proper target influence, both as to magnitude and change rate, the device sends an electrical impulse to trigger the firing systems. The firing systems then act to fire an associated S&A device to initiate detonation of the warhead. Air-to-air guided missiles are normally fuzed for a proximity burst by using a TDDwith an S&A device."
"In the contact fuze, the force of impact closes a firing switch within the fuze to complete the firing circuit, detonating the warhead. Where proximity fuzing is used, the firing action is very similar to the action of proximity fuzes used with bombs and rockets."
So a contact fuze is indeed physical circuit and couldn't be tricked with ECM, but note the part about proximity fuzes being an *electronic* system. Therefore your statement that "Most proximity detonators work physically, not electronically" is entirely incorrect. The proximity detonation fuze is linked to a "Target Detection Device" which is an *electronic* system and could concievably be fooled by *electronic* counter measures.
The only homers in vendetta that aren't proximity fuzed are the yellowjacket and the stingray, consequently any sort of "SEPS" system probably wouldn't work on these two missiles, but would be great for stopping swarms, geminis, sunflares, jackhammers, and screamers.
A good website that explains all this clearly is: http://www.ordnance.org/missile_components.htm
Read the sections labeled "Fuzing" and "TDD" about 3/4 of the way down.
A few snippets:
"TDDs are electronic detecting devices similar to the detecting systems in VT fuzes. They detect the presence of a target and determine the moment of firing. When subjected to the proper target influence, both as to magnitude and change rate, the device sends an electrical impulse to trigger the firing systems. The firing systems then act to fire an associated S&A device to initiate detonation of the warhead. Air-to-air guided missiles are normally fuzed for a proximity burst by using a TDDwith an S&A device."
"In the contact fuze, the force of impact closes a firing switch within the fuze to complete the firing circuit, detonating the warhead. Where proximity fuzing is used, the firing action is very similar to the action of proximity fuzes used with bombs and rockets."
So a contact fuze is indeed physical circuit and couldn't be tricked with ECM, but note the part about proximity fuzes being an *electronic* system. Therefore your statement that "Most proximity detonators work physically, not electronically" is entirely incorrect. The proximity detonation fuze is linked to a "Target Detection Device" which is an *electronic* system and could concievably be fooled by *electronic* counter measures.
The only homers in vendetta that aren't proximity fuzed are the yellowjacket and the stingray, consequently any sort of "SEPS" system probably wouldn't work on these two missiles, but would be great for stopping swarms, geminis, sunflares, jackhammers, and screamers.
Note the usage of "most" in my sentence. In any case, I'm trying to correct the usage of the term "ECM", not argue about whether SEPS should be used or not. So at least we got that outta the way. Although I'm still having trouble finding SEPS for use on aircraft. It looks like an infantry exclusive defense system. There may be a reason for that, but I can't say because I don't know much about it.
Nevertheless the idea behind SEPS and my concept of an EMP shield is pretty much the same--early detonation. So arguing over the technical points of either or are pretty much moot at this point. Ultimately, however, I'd prefer to have some visual feedback (lightning bolts) as to how these missiles are magically blowing up right before they impact a heavy class ship. I think most people would too. It is after a game and not a tech demo for the US army.
Nevertheless the idea behind SEPS and my concept of an EMP shield is pretty much the same--early detonation. So arguing over the technical points of either or are pretty much moot at this point. Ultimately, however, I'd prefer to have some visual feedback (lightning bolts) as to how these missiles are magically blowing up right before they impact a heavy class ship. I think most people would too. It is after a game and not a tech demo for the US army.
What about a different explanation?
For example: That space junk we see flowing by our cockpit can blow holes in a large ship during transit unless there's a shield. Thus, the ships equip one whose purpose is to knock away the space junk. However, this process creates lots of static electricity from the metal and dust and stuff bouncing off the shield. Some of it is harnessed to power the ship's electronics, and some just hangs out on the ship's superstructure, creating a massive doorknob hazard for crewmen.
Between nations, this technology varies in that the Serco's shields create a positive charge, and Itani (and thus Neutral*) shields create a negative charge. The result is that when Serco and Itani/Neut capships battle, great Frankenstein-esque arcs of lightning leap between the combatants as the charges equalize, providing yet another flight hazard for fighters. Because the fighters use wormholes to travel from place to place instead of high-speed drives, they do not need the shields, nor do they have the capacitance to store such a charge. Rumors always fly of the Itani coming up with a way around this, but nothing is concrete yet.
*Because the Itani are the scientists, and the Serco sure as heck aren't giving their technology away.
For example: That space junk we see flowing by our cockpit can blow holes in a large ship during transit unless there's a shield. Thus, the ships equip one whose purpose is to knock away the space junk. However, this process creates lots of static electricity from the metal and dust and stuff bouncing off the shield. Some of it is harnessed to power the ship's electronics, and some just hangs out on the ship's superstructure, creating a massive doorknob hazard for crewmen.
Between nations, this technology varies in that the Serco's shields create a positive charge, and Itani (and thus Neutral*) shields create a negative charge. The result is that when Serco and Itani/Neut capships battle, great Frankenstein-esque arcs of lightning leap between the combatants as the charges equalize, providing yet another flight hazard for fighters. Because the fighters use wormholes to travel from place to place instead of high-speed drives, they do not need the shields, nor do they have the capacitance to store such a charge. Rumors always fly of the Itani coming up with a way around this, but nothing is concrete yet.
*Because the Itani are the scientists, and the Serco sure as heck aren't giving their technology away.
Just a suggestion, it would make the game soo much more fair to all those traders and rag users to be able to shoot missiles till they explode, it would prevent homing spammers and such, and increase the "realness" of the game.
~Tin Man~
~Tin Man~
I made a thread for this a looooong time ago. Yes, it is a good idea, but I say no to being able to target them. You have to shoot them out without autoaim and missiles in close proximity (like locust swarms) would have to take damage from each other's explosions.
I also made a thread like this long ago. At first, the devs thought that they already had it. Then they realized that to have it they'd have to rewrite some part of the code, and then we didn't hear about it for a long time.
Targeting warheads would be cool, but I highly recommend that homers and seekers (except Yellow Jackets) not be nerfed in the future. Here's why.
Firstly, Geminis and anything except swarms are plenty easy to dodge at the moment. I've been able to dodge Geminis very easily in anything up to a Hornet. Yes, even if the person spams you. All it takes is a little timing and last minute maneuvering. I won't say how, because giving tactics away to the enemy is dumb. But I will say it's not impossible.
Secondly, I agree that anything above a Hornet (especially Ragnaroks and Centaurs) requires you to you use boosters to avoid missiles completely. Otherwise you're toast. Most of the fighting that's been occuring has been reduced to swarm and seeker spamming via Ragnaroks. What basically happen is Ragnarok A fires swarms at Ragnarok B. Ragnarok B fires swarms at Ragnarok A. Both die. Repeat times a thousand until someone gets bored and logs off. These heavy ships are flying targets when it comes to guided weapons.
However, I don't think that targeting warheads will be the solution to the problem. You've got a ship such as the Ragnarok that already has trouble turning to begin with. What makes you think you'll be able to turn in time to shoot those guided missiles if the assailant is BEHIND you shooting? You're screwed because you'll never turn in time. So shooting down warheads is pretty much a crapshoot, even though it may be a cool feature. However I think you'll be giving fighters more of an advantage to it than bombers, which IMO is problematic.
I'm not a big fan of ECM either. I don't like the idea of a device that arbitrarily decides whether you get hit or not. The games that do use ECM mostly end up that way, where everything is based on luck and chance. Chaff and flares are more reliable, but they tend to nerf missiles completely. And again, it's still a little luck based.
What I had in mind was an EMP shield for Ragnaroks and Centaurs. It only uses energy when it's in use. You don't have to turn it on or anything. You just equip your ship with it and that's it. What it does is it zaps any guided missiles within a certain radius of your ship, using the l-mine bolt effects. Anytime bolts shoot out of your ship, you lose energy according to how long it takes to detonate those missiles. In most cases it won't stop a missile from hitting you completely, but it'll be far enough to absorb maybe 50-60% of the damage.
That way there's no chance or luck involved. You know you have a shield system and you know it'll work all the time. And it will only be available on ships that are incapable of dodging swarms, meaning they're Ragnarok or Centaur exclusive devices.
I'm not sure whether EMP shields should work on enemy ships or not. Because the way it works is similar to l-mines, I'm thinking that l-mines might not even be necessary anymore, since your ship essentially has an l-mine attached to it that consumes energy when in use. So it may have the same type of protection. Heck, Ragnarok and Centaurs may end up becoming great blockade ships because of it! Proximity mines can remain, since they're really not as exploited as l-mines at the moment.
So how 'bout it? You hit two birds with one stone. You eliminate l-mines completely, but add even greater protection against fighters who tend to do circles around your Ragnarok and end up seeker spamming it to death. Booya!
Firstly, Geminis and anything except swarms are plenty easy to dodge at the moment. I've been able to dodge Geminis very easily in anything up to a Hornet. Yes, even if the person spams you. All it takes is a little timing and last minute maneuvering. I won't say how, because giving tactics away to the enemy is dumb. But I will say it's not impossible.
Secondly, I agree that anything above a Hornet (especially Ragnaroks and Centaurs) requires you to you use boosters to avoid missiles completely. Otherwise you're toast. Most of the fighting that's been occuring has been reduced to swarm and seeker spamming via Ragnaroks. What basically happen is Ragnarok A fires swarms at Ragnarok B. Ragnarok B fires swarms at Ragnarok A. Both die. Repeat times a thousand until someone gets bored and logs off. These heavy ships are flying targets when it comes to guided weapons.
However, I don't think that targeting warheads will be the solution to the problem. You've got a ship such as the Ragnarok that already has trouble turning to begin with. What makes you think you'll be able to turn in time to shoot those guided missiles if the assailant is BEHIND you shooting? You're screwed because you'll never turn in time. So shooting down warheads is pretty much a crapshoot, even though it may be a cool feature. However I think you'll be giving fighters more of an advantage to it than bombers, which IMO is problematic.
I'm not a big fan of ECM either. I don't like the idea of a device that arbitrarily decides whether you get hit or not. The games that do use ECM mostly end up that way, where everything is based on luck and chance. Chaff and flares are more reliable, but they tend to nerf missiles completely. And again, it's still a little luck based.
What I had in mind was an EMP shield for Ragnaroks and Centaurs. It only uses energy when it's in use. You don't have to turn it on or anything. You just equip your ship with it and that's it. What it does is it zaps any guided missiles within a certain radius of your ship, using the l-mine bolt effects. Anytime bolts shoot out of your ship, you lose energy according to how long it takes to detonate those missiles. In most cases it won't stop a missile from hitting you completely, but it'll be far enough to absorb maybe 50-60% of the damage.
That way there's no chance or luck involved. You know you have a shield system and you know it'll work all the time. And it will only be available on ships that are incapable of dodging swarms, meaning they're Ragnarok or Centaur exclusive devices.
I'm not sure whether EMP shields should work on enemy ships or not. Because the way it works is similar to l-mines, I'm thinking that l-mines might not even be necessary anymore, since your ship essentially has an l-mine attached to it that consumes energy when in use. So it may have the same type of protection. Heck, Ragnarok and Centaurs may end up becoming great blockade ships because of it! Proximity mines can remain, since they're really not as exploited as l-mines at the moment.
So how 'bout it? You hit two birds with one stone. You eliminate l-mines completely, but add even greater protection against fighters who tend to do circles around your Ragnarok and end up seeker spamming it to death. Booya!
I like. But let it damage ships. That'll discourage enemy ships from nuzzling up to the blind spots of potentially larger ships equipped with this "ECM" shield, as many of us did with the frigate's wing.
Mabey shields are a little much, but it is a good idea... or just homers that track other missiles or something, it would be easy to script, just give them a solid state, and a few other things, and bam!, u have exploding homers when i pull out my physics mode and adv. gatling turret... *Drool*
~Tin Man~
~Tin Man~
EMP shield seems to powerful. It would render the heavies all but immune to seeker fire. Not cool. Maybe the only way to settle the problem is to institute a system for countermeasures. There is a thread up there somewhere about it.
/me slaps his forehead
I don't quite see any point to making missles shootable. If you make them easy to shoot down, they won't o much, if you make them hard to shoot down, then there is no point.
If homers are shootable, they shouldn't be targetable. At least I think so. :P
If homers are shootable, they shouldn't be targetable. At least I think so. :P
Mag, ur right, as i said, shields are a bit much, countermeasure are a really good idea too, mabey taking up a large slot or something, using an auto-targeting system, that takes up a seprate energy meter, or mabey just get too hot, making it more fair in fights due to cool down time and such, getting rid or targeting and such, so then only ships that needed it could use it due to the large port factor and such on less agile ships.. justa thought
~Tin Man~
~Tin Man~
Guys, you already *can* target warheads! Just use the { and } keys to cycle through the targets until you see "rocket008" or whatever. I'm not sure what this means in terms of shooting them down, but it seems like the devs are moving in that direction.
First i wanna say that i hate when people steal my tactics (the Swarm seeker Rag. i invented it)
Second the whole targetable/shoot down/ counter measure idea has been around sinse before most of you had characters.
If a1 hadn't trashed the archive, i could pull up a really good topic about this.
I think we decided that the best bet would be a varaity of anti-missle weapons. i'll try to list them.
Targetable war heads- shoot em down, they go boom.
EMP bombs: disables the missles.
Full 360° AI turret that shoots down missles- Gives the heavies a chance. Sell a variety of em based on accuracy and power.
Missle splash can destroy missles- This means that you cant rush up and unload because the trail of missles will blow up right back at you.
The one thing i didn't like was the full auto on turrets because it would drain your battery, so i figure that teh AI can aim and stuff, but we gotta hit fire.
Second the whole targetable/shoot down/ counter measure idea has been around sinse before most of you had characters.
If a1 hadn't trashed the archive, i could pull up a really good topic about this.
I think we decided that the best bet would be a varaity of anti-missle weapons. i'll try to list them.
Targetable war heads- shoot em down, they go boom.
EMP bombs: disables the missles.
Full 360° AI turret that shoots down missles- Gives the heavies a chance. Sell a variety of em based on accuracy and power.
Missle splash can destroy missles- This means that you cant rush up and unload because the trail of missles will blow up right back at you.
The one thing i didn't like was the full auto on turrets because it would drain your battery, so i figure that teh AI can aim and stuff, but we gotta hit fire.