Forums » Suggestions
Point Defense Weapons
Phase PD (Point Defense) - Itani Only
License: 8/8/-/-/-
Damage: 250
Port : Small
Velocity: 190m/s
Energy: 8/blast
Delay: 0.18s
Grid Usage: 5
Mass: 300 kg
Volume as cargo: 1 cu
Auto Targeting - Neutron Blaster
Flavor text (Thanks UC)- Light weight energy canon. Fires small bursts of energy suitable for shooting down incoming missiles and rockets.
Designed by the Itani Defense Force, this small arms canon's primary purpose is to equip light fighters for escort or strategic defense missions and roles.
Gatling PD (Point Defense) - Serco Only
License: 8/-/8/-/-
Damage: 300
Port : Large
Velocity: 185m/s
Energy: 10/blast
Delay: 0.09s [EDITED from .9 due to forgotten 0]
Grid Usage: 6
Mass: 1200 kg
Volume as cargo: 1 cu
Auto Targeting - Mega Positron Cannon
Flavor text - Heavy weight gatling canon. Fires small burst of energy suitable for shooting down incoming missiles and rockets as well as defending against hostiles.
Adapted from samples of the Itani Defense Force Phase PD, this large port version was developed to accommodate slightly larger energy bursts into a rapid fire gatling canon housing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the above would have the ability to detonate ordinance such as missiles or rockets.
An added requirement should be enlistment in the nation's military along with low standing for the enemy nation.
If possible perhaps make actual participation in the skirmishes a requirement as well.
License: 8/8/-/-/-
Damage: 250
Port : Small
Velocity: 190m/s
Energy: 8/blast
Delay: 0.18s
Grid Usage: 5
Mass: 300 kg
Volume as cargo: 1 cu
Auto Targeting - Neutron Blaster
Flavor text (Thanks UC)- Light weight energy canon. Fires small bursts of energy suitable for shooting down incoming missiles and rockets.
Designed by the Itani Defense Force, this small arms canon's primary purpose is to equip light fighters for escort or strategic defense missions and roles.
Gatling PD (Point Defense) - Serco Only
License: 8/-/8/-/-
Damage: 300
Port : Large
Velocity: 185m/s
Energy: 10/blast
Delay: 0.09s [EDITED from .9 due to forgotten 0]
Grid Usage: 6
Mass: 1200 kg
Volume as cargo: 1 cu
Auto Targeting - Mega Positron Cannon
Flavor text - Heavy weight gatling canon. Fires small burst of energy suitable for shooting down incoming missiles and rockets as well as defending against hostiles.
Adapted from samples of the Itani Defense Force Phase PD, this large port version was developed to accommodate slightly larger energy bursts into a rapid fire gatling canon housing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the above would have the ability to detonate ordinance such as missiles or rockets.
An added requirement should be enlistment in the nation's military along with low standing for the enemy nation.
If possible perhaps make actual participation in the skirmishes a requirement as well.
Interesting idea. While I still think that rockets and missiles should be destroyable by all weapons (possibly balancing them in group combat as a result!), having weapons specifically designed to do so fills a nice little niche.
What good is a PD weapon with a refire delay of virtually an entire second?
Your attempts to make the Itani model 'just a little better' are really betrayed by your bias here, as the Serco model wouldn't be worth ten credits to me- I'd get an Itani friend to deliver me a moth load of yours. What possible justification do you have for tanking velocity, energy, delay, grid, AND mass on the serco model? It does not posses a single redeeming factor.
I'm with Ghost on this one. Every gun should be able to harm a missile. Also, point defense is for capships, not fighters. The entire premise behind PD is that 'I can't get out of the way so I should shoot down the threat.' Your fighter should be blasting enemy bombers, not waiting for them to fire so that you can take down 2 swarms out of a flight of 40. I don't see a single upside in this suggestion.
Your attempts to make the Itani model 'just a little better' are really betrayed by your bias here, as the Serco model wouldn't be worth ten credits to me- I'd get an Itani friend to deliver me a moth load of yours. What possible justification do you have for tanking velocity, energy, delay, grid, AND mass on the serco model? It does not posses a single redeeming factor.
I'm with Ghost on this one. Every gun should be able to harm a missile. Also, point defense is for capships, not fighters. The entire premise behind PD is that 'I can't get out of the way so I should shoot down the threat.' Your fighter should be blasting enemy bombers, not waiting for them to fire so that you can take down 2 swarms out of a flight of 40. I don't see a single upside in this suggestion.
Oops, sorry about that it was supposed to be .09 >.<
And the "bias" is that Itani had invented it and the Serco reverse engineered it.
Also the grid of 5 vs grid of 6 doesn't really impact the max output when loading out for missile defense wether you're Itani or Serco. Putting 4 Phases on a hornet fires the same bolts as 2 cannons on a centaur or ragnarok. The difference is that the serco version allows for other weapons to be equipped, An Itani could put 3 on a Rag and still have a Large slot left to use although it won't match the number of bolts output by a pair of the cannons.
And the "bias" is that Itani had invented it and the Serco reverse engineered it.
Also the grid of 5 vs grid of 6 doesn't really impact the max output when loading out for missile defense wether you're Itani or Serco. Putting 4 Phases on a hornet fires the same bolts as 2 cannons on a centaur or ragnarok. The difference is that the serco version allows for other weapons to be equipped, An Itani could put 3 on a Rag and still have a Large slot left to use although it won't match the number of bolts output by a pair of the cannons.
The Serco do not reverse engineer anything, we buy it from the UIT who bought it (or corporate espionaged it) from you. Further, again, was it necessary to take a hit on FIVE stats? When people with the good of the game at heart 'balance' equipment, they do not nerf it on 5/10 stats. IMHO you are motivated only by malice.
Take a look at my suggestion here. Can you even tell, if you didn't already know, which faction I fly? I highly doubt it.
Grid usage of virtually everything in the game is 4. Unless you need to limit how many of these someone wears, yours should be 4. I don't see how wearing 2 point defense guns is a hack when 1 is not, so there is no need for either of the two weapons to have grid > 4.
Take a look at my suggestion here. Can you even tell, if you didn't already know, which faction I fly? I highly doubt it.
Grid usage of virtually everything in the game is 4. Unless you need to limit how many of these someone wears, yours should be 4. I don't see how wearing 2 point defense guns is a hack when 1 is not, so there is no need for either of the two weapons to have grid > 4.
Don't see where you think iry's suggestion is has any maliced intent in it anywhere. If that was the case, he would not even have suggested one for Serco, or he would have "really" nerfed it. Its just a suggestion. I like your new ship model suggestions btw Aramarth.
That being said, you do have a very valid point about Serco buying Itani technology from UIT. You also have a valid point on it really not being feasible for fighters as they should just worry about having to dodge said missiles or just make it where any gun should be able to destroy missiles. However, it would be a pain in the arse to hit. I could see it used on larger attack vessels though such as the Rag's and maybe Hornet. I like it even better as a defensive option for moths to shoot down incoming flares and missiles as one would have to think that more than mines over the eons have been developed in the VO universe as a defensive option for traders and miners.
Why not have it both ways. Have the nation specific PD systems available in each nation's respective space stations. You then could have the ability to buy either the Itani or Serco PD system in UIT and grey space, but at a substantial cost and with restrictions. A restriction of having to have Basic Miner 2 badge and Basic Trader 3 in addition to the current requirements to be able to buy and use the other factions PD system from UIT, and just make it very costly to buy from in grey space.
That being said, you do have a very valid point about Serco buying Itani technology from UIT. You also have a valid point on it really not being feasible for fighters as they should just worry about having to dodge said missiles or just make it where any gun should be able to destroy missiles. However, it would be a pain in the arse to hit. I could see it used on larger attack vessels though such as the Rag's and maybe Hornet. I like it even better as a defensive option for moths to shoot down incoming flares and missiles as one would have to think that more than mines over the eons have been developed in the VO universe as a defensive option for traders and miners.
Why not have it both ways. Have the nation specific PD systems available in each nation's respective space stations. You then could have the ability to buy either the Itani or Serco PD system in UIT and grey space, but at a substantial cost and with restrictions. A restriction of having to have Basic Miner 2 badge and Basic Trader 3 in addition to the current requirements to be able to buy and use the other factions PD system from UIT, and just make it very costly to buy from in grey space.
Grid useages higher than 4 simply eliminate the possibility of using the Rag. I don't like high grid useages for that reason.
The itani one needs an autoaim more like gauss.
The serco AGT will be a dream.
(edit) scratch that. You have the serco Gat with mega posi autoaim. Any serious point defense will simply use regular AGT because the excellent autoaim is what it takes to kill a tiney incoming missle. For this reason, neither of these new weapons will serve their intended purpose.
The itani one needs an autoaim more like gauss.
The serco AGT will be a dream.
(edit) scratch that. You have the serco Gat with mega posi autoaim. Any serious point defense will simply use regular AGT because the excellent autoaim is what it takes to kill a tiney incoming missle. For this reason, neither of these new weapons will serve their intended purpose.
Now that I think about it, we could just convert the flechette cannons into anti-missile weapons.
Actually I saw / see their intended purpose of not defening the ship they are mounted on but the vessel which the ship is based from, like a layered defense envelope for the capital ship. Theres the shipboard turrets which are really only effective out to about 800m vs non capital ships and then the sheilds / armor. For distances in excess of 800m there is the PD fighter that can gun down missile volleys to the point that shipboard defenses can deal with the remainder. At the very least volleys could be weakened to reduce the strain on the sheilds. Shooting down enemy missile platforms is not always an option, nor is it neccesarily an easy task, this would offer another role to large scale battles.
I like your concept for a new role in cap ship battles iry. I think the mechanics of landing a shot on a small, fast, and retreating target require excellent autoaim for some margin of success. In experiments I've done, it hard to land shots with AGT on missles tracking me. If they were running away from me, it would be almost impossible.
You can't land shots on missiles with any currently player useable weapons. Also missiles follow predictable paths and are easy to fire into (when they are targetting something else), when they are targeted on you they jink and weave with your every movement.
The stats seem fairly balanced. The Large Port version should have a larger bullet if it's going to be slower, perhaps. The refire delay is rather long though... I would really enjoy flying a ship with guns like those if the energy, damage, and cooldown were all cut in half. Something about really rapid fire is just plain neat.
They do not make sense on single-seat craft.
Once we get corvettes and gunships, I'd be all for them*, but right now? Just make weapons be able to take down ordnance in flight, problem solved.
* With tweaked stats. Decrease damage so that they make less sense against fighters (say, around 20-50, if ordnance health is in the same range), if not massed. Increase refire rate. Increase velocity to around 200+ m/s.
PDW are supposed to deliver protection by being able to quickly cover an area of space with a multitude of projectiles. Speaking in an oversimplified way, you don't use an assault rifle for skeet shooting, you use a shotgun.
Once we get corvettes and gunships, I'd be all for them*, but right now? Just make weapons be able to take down ordnance in flight, problem solved.
* With tweaked stats. Decrease damage so that they make less sense against fighters (say, around 20-50, if ordnance health is in the same range), if not massed. Increase refire rate. Increase velocity to around 200+ m/s.
PDW are supposed to deliver protection by being able to quickly cover an area of space with a multitude of projectiles. Speaking in an oversimplified way, you don't use an assault rifle for skeet shooting, you use a shotgun.
Point Defense Weapons always remind me of sprinkler systems in buildings in case of fire. Erm...
I do agree with Tosh on this. They are a little odd on the fighters/small freighters we have currently, (Yes, I am calling the Moth small). To me, it's like sticking a hanger inside of a blue whale. Possible, yes, but I'm sure the whale would complain.
The main thing I think about when someone says "point defense weapons" are low damage and fast refire rates. All the turret needs to do is touch off the missile before it hits the shield. For some reason I'm thinking a missile that's built to explode won't be as hard to destroy as a ship, which is (hopefully) not.
Basically, since I'm guessing that these are going to be piloted by computers and not people, they should be the sort of weapons that kill missiles, but if a ship were to run into it, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Ships would be trackable by them, no reason for them not too, but the damage would be relatively minor.
That's my two cents...
Speaking of sprinklers, that would a pretty neat way of warding off missiles. Smokescreeeeeeeeeeeeen!
I do agree with Tosh on this. They are a little odd on the fighters/small freighters we have currently, (Yes, I am calling the Moth small). To me, it's like sticking a hanger inside of a blue whale. Possible, yes, but I'm sure the whale would complain.
The main thing I think about when someone says "point defense weapons" are low damage and fast refire rates. All the turret needs to do is touch off the missile before it hits the shield. For some reason I'm thinking a missile that's built to explode won't be as hard to destroy as a ship, which is (hopefully) not.
Basically, since I'm guessing that these are going to be piloted by computers and not people, they should be the sort of weapons that kill missiles, but if a ship were to run into it, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Ships would be trackable by them, no reason for them not too, but the damage would be relatively minor.
That's my two cents...
Speaking of sprinklers, that would a pretty neat way of warding off missiles. Smokescreeeeeeeeeeeeen!
like a chaff?
You're all right, a dedicated point defense weapon doesn't make any sense on a light fighter. You're also all right that this gun is hardly a dedicated point defense weapon. I only wish you all could have put two and two together, and not be so concerned with what it's called, so much as what it's function is.
iry's weapon is a gun that's more useful than regular weapons at taking down missiles, rockets, mines, and avalons than any other weapon, while still being somewhat useful in a dog fight. You wouldn't need three of these on a Valkyrie. One would be enough; one would help keep your weight down, and give you a significantly better chance at blasting incoming missiles.
Maybe your Cap-ship doesn't have any PD weapons on board. Maybe its not a warship. Maybe all its turrets have been destroyed on one side. Maybe it's flying in formation with other ships, and firing PD weapons at an incoming missile would fry the ship next to it. Maybe it's trying to navigate through a cluster of mines, and can't get close enough to accurately hit them without risking the ship. There's like a million reasons why it'd be handy to fit a small, agile ship with one of these, and if doing so doesn't dramatically ruin it's ability to deal damage, then I fail to see what the problem is.
iry's weapon is a gun that's more useful than regular weapons at taking down missiles, rockets, mines, and avalons than any other weapon, while still being somewhat useful in a dog fight. You wouldn't need three of these on a Valkyrie. One would be enough; one would help keep your weight down, and give you a significantly better chance at blasting incoming missiles.
Maybe your Cap-ship doesn't have any PD weapons on board. Maybe its not a warship. Maybe all its turrets have been destroyed on one side. Maybe it's flying in formation with other ships, and firing PD weapons at an incoming missile would fry the ship next to it. Maybe it's trying to navigate through a cluster of mines, and can't get close enough to accurately hit them without risking the ship. There's like a million reasons why it'd be handy to fit a small, agile ship with one of these, and if doing so doesn't dramatically ruin it's ability to deal damage, then I fail to see what the problem is.