Missile slot reworks?

Ships
41

35 minutes ago, SunnySweet said:

 

I see little problem here,

 

if misslile can do max 10k demage to something it can’t do more.

So 60k survivability from frigate should be able to survive 5 impacts when it is not healed.

4k-8k recon should die.

 

What more force should larger object absorbe if there is just 10k? How can you get +25% or +100% how?

 

If you invent that you put 10k energy in something and you get out 12.5k or even 20k energy you will be very rich man.

Not to mention that you will solve all problems with energy for ever.

 

Think - normalization. So lets assume that the missile is doing 10k damage to fighters. This tells us that energy that crosses the intersection of the spheres of normalised fighter shield and explosion is 10k (units). For frigates that intersection will have 1.25 times the area, hence 125%. For destroyers that intersection will be twice of the fighter’s one. You could normalize it to destroyer class and then you would display damage as 20k, and  frigates would have 37,5% explosive damage reduction, fighters - 50% and interceptors 67%. 

42

1 hour ago, SunnySweet said:

I think you make all people here tired with your explanation.

you speaking for all people now? are you bringing pitchforks aswell?

 

1 hour ago, SunnySweet said:

meh I believe all my effort to explain this to you will hit thick wall in your …

you do not explain me anything, you asked a question.

 

to put the question forward, even if it did the same amount of damage to all kind of sized targets, why does it do twice the damage if it hits two at the same time?

 

but maybe you understand ownagemasters explanation better.

43

2 hours ago, OwnageMaster said:

 

Think - normalization. So lets assume that the missile is doing 10k damage to fighters. This tells us that energy that crosses the intersection of the spheres of normalised fighter shield and explosion is 10k (units). For frigates that intersection will have 1.25 times the area, hence 125%. For destroyers that intersection will be twice of the fighter’s one. You could normalize it to destroyer class and then you would display damage as 20k, and  frigates would have 37,5% explosive damage reduction, fighters - 50% and interceptors 67%. 

 

This can work just for torpedo and nukes so weapons that have area effect.

 

When we are talking about missiles that detonate at impact in just one target it is not good.

One EM missile can hit just one target and damage should be always same,

 

Every explanation to protect small ships here is meh.

44

6 minutes ago, SunnySweet said:

 

This can work just for torpedo and nukes so weapons that have area effect.

 

When we are talking about missiles that detonate at impact in just one target it is not good.

One EM missile can hit just one target and damage should be always same,

 

Every explanation to protect small ships here is meh.

Every missile has an area dmg and explosion can hit multiple targets, every single one.

45

2 hours ago, avarshina said:

Here stems the confusion from: the 1.0 factor in regard to fighters and missile damage is due to the game’s history, first there were the fighter class, then came interceptors and then frigates

i think interceptors and frigates were always in, but i don’t know that.

the idea to take fighters as baseline makes sense however, if you look that the first ships you get are fighters aswell, and most of the gameplay is created with the assumption, that fighters are the “default” combatants.

 

yet again, star conflict is not the only game doing this, it’s just logical, i don’t even get why there is so much confusion about it. it’s the same as in e.g. fantasy games the “warrior” is usually the baseline.

 

most game design starts with the allrounder unit. since its also a great way to test results.

in physics, we also measure other stars compared to our sun, or start calculations based on that.

our decimal system also just assumes 10 to be the baseline, most likely because of the amount of fingers we have.

all of these things are arbitrary.

 

2 hours ago, avarshina said:

As I understand, g4borg is …

it really should not matter what i am. people should listen to each other.

 

3 hours ago, avarshina said:

And sadly the ship classes have limited tactical choice of missiles in this regard:

actually this is not so bad, so small ships still have the best weaponry to hit small ships.

i did not know that, cool to know.

 

9 minutes ago, SunnySweet said:

Every explanation to protect small ships here is meh.

you assume, explanations are there to protect small ships?

lol.

 

9 minutes ago, SunnySweet said:

When we are talking about missiles that detonate at impact in just one target it is not good.

which one are you talking about? all missiles have an explosion radius.

46

17 minutes ago, SunnySweet said:

 

This can work just for torpedo and nukes so weapons that have area effect.

 

When we are talking about missiles that detonate at impact in just one target it is not good.

One EM missile can hit just one target and damage should be always same,

 

Every explanation to protect small ships here is meh.

Actually every single explosive weapon damage is calculated like this. That post was an step by step explanation for TAZ. TAZ doesn’t read answers. Don’t be like TAZ. 

47

42 minutes ago, g4borg said:

…

actually this is not so bad, so small ships still have the best weaponry to hit small ships.

i did not know that, cool to know.

…

Well, as a frigate player I’d love to have more choice to equip against smaller/swifter and larger/slower targets. I would like to have missiles with higher maneuvering speed around 100 deg/s.

Even the frigate’s Octopus missile volley (5 quick shoots in a 3s volley) have meh maneuvering speed of only 35 deg/s,

even though the 5 missiles are assumed to be small missiles…

The best was if I could choose in the game because the frigate is such a large space vessel it surely has space for 2-3 different missile casettes on board (like missile is selected automatically as per ship class locked as target). Maybe I will make a suggestion for this.

48

41 minutes ago, avarshina said:

Well, as a frigate player I’d love to have more choice to equip against smaller/swifter and larger/slower targets. I would like to have missiles with higher maneuvering speed around 100 deg/s.

Even the frigate’s Octopus missile volley (5 quick shoots in a 3s volley) have meh maneuvering speed of only 35 deg/s,

even though the 5 missiles are assumed to be small missiles…

The best was if I could choose in the game because the frigate is such a large space vessel it surely has space for 2-3 different missile casettes on board (like missile is selected automatically as per ship class locked as target). Maybe I will make a suggestion for this.

Please do - I will support you. Especially when:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/converting-b52-to-arsenal-plane-would.html

49

The in game mechanic is fine for me. It does represent the actual physics good enough. For multiple reasons:

 

Shrapnel: a bigger target will get hit by more shrapnel shards than a small one. -> more damage

 

Shockwave: a light target requires less force to accelerate than a massive one. Thats why a fly will survive dropping down from a skyscraper and an elephant wont.

The smalls ship will mostly get pushed away from the shockwave, the massive one will warp and bend from the pressure -> more damage

 

There could be specialized shaped charge missiles to combat small craft more efficiently though.

50

I have question here.

Was any of you guys ever in army and did you ever do something with missiles or even with any kind of explosive devices?

Or do you base your knowlage on theory?

51

12 minutes ago, GatoGrande said:

I have question here.

Was any of you guys ever in army and did you ever do something with missiles or even with any kind of explosive devices?

Or do you base your knowlage on theory?

You do know that everything in Army did originate in theories too?

52

In theories everything can work until real tests prove it wrong.

 

In theory I can draw 3m bath in bathroom that is just 2m x 2m.

But will that be good-possible to do it in RL?

53

5 minutes ago, GatoGrande said:

In theories everything can work until real tests prove it wrong.

 

In theory I can draw 3m bath in bathroom that is just 2m x 2m.

But will that be good-possible to do it in RL?

Volume is measured in 3 dimensions

54

5 minutes ago, xKostyan said:

Volume is measured in 3 dimensions

Sure it is

55

8 minutes ago, GatoGrande said:

Sure it is

But did you actually went and confirmed it? 

56

3 minutes ago, xKostyan said:

But did you actually went and confirmed it? 

You should guess this.

57

1 hour ago, Scar6 said:

…

Shockwave: a light target requires less force to accelerate than a massive one. Thats why a fly will survive dropping down from a skyscraper and an elephant wont.

The smalls ship will mostly get pushed away from the shockwave, the massive one will warp and bend from the pressure -> more damage

…

And what if the small spaceship was pushed away and hit a rock ? Smashed like a fly and explode if it has no collision damage mitigation measures on board!

58

7 minutes ago, avarshina said:

And what if the small spaceship was pushed away and hit a rock ? Smashed like a fly and explode if it has no collision damage mitigation measures on board!

Soooo gravi wave effect for missiles! Balance! xD

59

On 12.2.2018 at 7:56 PM, OwnageMaster said:

Please do - I will support you. Especially when:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/converting-b52-to-arsenal-plane-would.html

I did a suggestion it is pending for checkup…