Forums » Suggestions
I'm really wondering why no guide has clamped down on this flamewar yet. There are no new arguments brought to this thread, only the old ones are being recycled in posts that become more inflammatory by the letter.
Conjo, please tone it down a tad by using less-inflamitory terms.
As one of the primary swarm-users in the game, I find a lot of the points in this thread downright wrong.
I do agree with one point though. Make swarms take much longer to re-fire.
Anyone who spams swarms (my description is *holding down the fire button or has 3 or more tubes in the air at once*) is just wasting shots and will use up all tubes before his/her adversary is dead. They are basically making bad shots that will allow their adversary to evade.
Only those that choose their shots wisely and only fire when conditions are optimum will win with swarms.
As one of the primary swarm-users in the game, I find a lot of the points in this thread downright wrong.
I do agree with one point though. Make swarms take much longer to re-fire.
Anyone who spams swarms (my description is *holding down the fire button or has 3 or more tubes in the air at once*) is just wasting shots and will use up all tubes before his/her adversary is dead. They are basically making bad shots that will allow their adversary to evade.
Only those that choose their shots wisely and only fire when conditions are optimum will win with swarms.
IMO, spamming is not "the defensive use of missiles" where the objective is not to "scare your opponents off", but to actually do some damage. That would be called bluffing.
The general consensus is that "spamming" is firing off large quantities of shots (in this case, missiles) in the hope that a number of them hit, the desired result being that a large quantity of damage is done to the target.
Perhaps the reason Lord Q seems to be at odds with everyone over this is because he uses missiles differently than the rest of us.
The long and the short of it, is that missiles are not MEANT to be offensive strike weapons, and while you can use them thay way, it SHOULD be hard to do so. If you want to kill something reliably, use something that's meant for the job!
Cunjo, gonna have to disagree with you there. In my mind, missiles should actually be highly effective offensive strike weapons, but only really useful if you know how to use them.
Think about it in real-life terms. Which one's going to be more likely to win in a dogfight, an F-16 armed with air-to-air missiles, or an F-16 armed with a machine gun?
The general consensus is that "spamming" is firing off large quantities of shots (in this case, missiles) in the hope that a number of them hit, the desired result being that a large quantity of damage is done to the target.
Perhaps the reason Lord Q seems to be at odds with everyone over this is because he uses missiles differently than the rest of us.
The long and the short of it, is that missiles are not MEANT to be offensive strike weapons, and while you can use them thay way, it SHOULD be hard to do so. If you want to kill something reliably, use something that's meant for the job!
Cunjo, gonna have to disagree with you there. In my mind, missiles should actually be highly effective offensive strike weapons, but only really useful if you know how to use them.
Think about it in real-life terms. Which one's going to be more likely to win in a dogfight, an F-16 armed with air-to-air missiles, or an F-16 armed with a machine gun?
Arguing with today's air combat procedures won't get you far. The combat in VO is radically different in that there is no major plane of reference, no gravity, movement in all six directions... the list goes on.
Also, the devs have repeatedly stated why missilesare such a difficult weapon, because it is incredibly easy to make them uber or totally nerf them.
Also, the devs have repeatedly stated why missilesare such a difficult weapon, because it is incredibly easy to make them uber or totally nerf them.
LQ:
no, there is a very big difference between using missiles defensively and spamming. Relayer is essentially spot-on with the definition of spamming with regards to missiles in VO, and also with the consequences of reduced rate of fire.
DK:
"Think about it in real-life terms. Which one's going to be more likely to win in a dogfight, an F-16 armed with air-to-air missiles, or an F-16 armed with a machine gun?"
The more relevant question is, which is more fun? a dogfight with F-16s armed with air-to-air missiles, or with F-16s armed with cannons? The cannons win by a landslide in that area.
And if you doubt that, try signing on for an hour of full-realism simulator time against a human opponent - you and your opponent will quickly come to the agreement that to have the most fun, missiles should be removed from the planes. I speak from experience.
VO is a game. the point of all good games is to have fun, not to kill/be killed efficiently.
no, there is a very big difference between using missiles defensively and spamming. Relayer is essentially spot-on with the definition of spamming with regards to missiles in VO, and also with the consequences of reduced rate of fire.
DK:
"Think about it in real-life terms. Which one's going to be more likely to win in a dogfight, an F-16 armed with air-to-air missiles, or an F-16 armed with a machine gun?"
The more relevant question is, which is more fun? a dogfight with F-16s armed with air-to-air missiles, or with F-16s armed with cannons? The cannons win by a landslide in that area.
And if you doubt that, try signing on for an hour of full-realism simulator time against a human opponent - you and your opponent will quickly come to the agreement that to have the most fun, missiles should be removed from the planes. I speak from experience.
VO is a game. the point of all good games is to have fun, not to kill/be killed efficiently.
there are 2 kinds of spamming, one is when you expect enough of your attacks to hit that you can destroy your enemy. the other is when you don't expect to kill your enemy, but instead epect to annoy or force your eneny to disengage.
swarms are inately a spam weapon, as they always fire a voley of several missiles. the problem as i see it is, we don't want spamming of the second kind except in a select few situations (traders escaping pirats), and spaming of the first kind is only desired when fighting NPCs or capitle ships. as long as we have swarms there will be spammers. and i think the only way to reduce spamming, is to make one voley of swarms capable of killing weeker targets, and simultaniously inpose restrictions on the firer that will require grater skill in landing a full voley.
as for missiles as a whole:
yes, they are the hardest weapons to balance, they tend to be too effective or too week. it's my prefrence that they be very effective at some specific task. and that they be balanced by enforcing restrictions on the firer, rather than by letting them be dropped into space at will, and then having little effectivness at actualy destroying their target.
i also think it is very inportant that missiles be destroyable by weapons-fire as that will allow a non-running solution to incomming missiles.
swarms are inately a spam weapon, as they always fire a voley of several missiles. the problem as i see it is, we don't want spamming of the second kind except in a select few situations (traders escaping pirats), and spaming of the first kind is only desired when fighting NPCs or capitle ships. as long as we have swarms there will be spammers. and i think the only way to reduce spamming, is to make one voley of swarms capable of killing weeker targets, and simultaniously inpose restrictions on the firer that will require grater skill in landing a full voley.
as for missiles as a whole:
yes, they are the hardest weapons to balance, they tend to be too effective or too week. it's my prefrence that they be very effective at some specific task. and that they be balanced by enforcing restrictions on the firer, rather than by letting them be dropped into space at will, and then having little effectivness at actualy destroying their target.
i also think it is very inportant that missiles be destroyable by weapons-fire as that will allow a non-running solution to incomming missiles.
Hi, I'm replying to say that I've read about half of this thread, and I think the fundamental idea has merit. The missiles do need reworking to make them a better contributing part of a more balanced whole. However, there's a couple of things that I want to approach before we get into something like this. Speeds are going to fluctuate a little in the near future (not a lot, just minor tweaks as previously discussed on here), and we're also looking at diversifying the fundamentals of weapons along a couple of different lines.. I want both of those topics well settled before I looked at revising the basis of missiles. I'm not against it though. And, yes, it is feasable to test this sort of thing on the Test server prior to rolling it into production.
So, mostly an FYI to say "I think it's a decent idea, and I am paying attention".
So, mostly an FYI to say "I think it's a decent idea, and I am paying attention".
well, that only took 13 months ;P
Haha, and I only posted the link 23 times (30 in total by myself and others)
Missles: I never want to miss a collecter bot with one. Ever.