Forums » Suggestions
"Anyhow, the trick to controlling spamming is ammo. You really can't spam with only one tube of swarms, there's not enough shots. And if you're foolish enough to dump all your ammo from your only tube of missiles in rapid succession, well, you deserve what you get."
Actually, because of the immense power of the things (even one direct hit can almost annihilate a cent) one tube can still be devestating, especially if brought in close before being loosed. Yes, spamming is an ineffective tactic, because all they have to do is outrun the missiles and then come in for the kill (or, rather, come back in to find that the spammer has run away)
I would much rather see limitations put on the rate of fire than further limitations imposed on ammo, and perhaps a reduction in overall damage. If, say you reduced the damage done by swarms to just under half of what it takes to destroy a medium ship, and increased the firing delay to somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 seconds, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate a ship in one pass with swarmer missile spam. The Refire rate is the big thing - launching four flights in rapid sucession is not cool.
Actually, because of the immense power of the things (even one direct hit can almost annihilate a cent) one tube can still be devestating, especially if brought in close before being loosed. Yes, spamming is an ineffective tactic, because all they have to do is outrun the missiles and then come in for the kill (or, rather, come back in to find that the spammer has run away)
I would much rather see limitations put on the rate of fire than further limitations imposed on ammo, and perhaps a reduction in overall damage. If, say you reduced the damage done by swarms to just under half of what it takes to destroy a medium ship, and increased the firing delay to somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 seconds, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate a ship in one pass with swarmer missile spam. The Refire rate is the big thing - launching four flights in rapid sucession is not cool.
That's actually not a bad idea. It seems only reasonable that it would take a while to reload all those swarms anyways.
Cunjo,
you can run away from an oponent while keeping them in a 30 degree conne eminating from the bow of your ship?
and don't bother mentioning backrolling, because a quick turbo burst can put you past them and out of the targeting cone.
perhaps you didn't understand waht i refer to as a trageting cone:
i mean a cone beginnign at the bow and perjecting forwards that the firer must keep his target in or the missiles will loose tracking or preferably go inert all together.
now people fire lots of missiles because one missile is worthless. if one missile were effective, expensove, and a sisable portion of your ammunition stores, then they'd only fire one or 2 at a time (note this apply to vollies of swarms rather than indavidual perjectiles).
if you want to stop spamming you have to make the weapon effective with relativly few shots, AND ensure that firing blindly will do no good.
lowering the rate of fire and doing nothing esle makes a weapon less effective, not less spam-worthy.
you can run away from an oponent while keeping them in a 30 degree conne eminating from the bow of your ship?
and don't bother mentioning backrolling, because a quick turbo burst can put you past them and out of the targeting cone.
perhaps you didn't understand waht i refer to as a trageting cone:
i mean a cone beginnign at the bow and perjecting forwards that the firer must keep his target in or the missiles will loose tracking or preferably go inert all together.
now people fire lots of missiles because one missile is worthless. if one missile were effective, expensove, and a sisable portion of your ammunition stores, then they'd only fire one or 2 at a time (note this apply to vollies of swarms rather than indavidual perjectiles).
if you want to stop spamming you have to make the weapon effective with relativly few shots, AND ensure that firing blindly will do no good.
lowering the rate of fire and doing nothing esle makes a weapon less effective, not less spam-worthy.
LQ:
Bad Idea.
That's a tracking cone, not a targeting cone, and it won't help anything. All it will do is make missiles useless.
"now people fire lots of missiles because one missile is worthless. if one missile were effective, expensove, and a sisable portion of your ammunition stores, then they'd only fire one or 2 at a time (note this apply to vollies of swarms rather than indavidual perjectiles)...
...if you want to stop spamming you have to make the weapon effective with relativly few shots, AND ensure that firing blindly will do no good."
WRONG. People fire lots of missiles because they're lazy bastards who can't/won't aim or engage their target fairly.
One volley of swarms is NOT ineffective. A single volley can almost kill a cent outright. If I were going to complain about Neutrons being ineffective because it took more than one hit to kill a ship with them, I'd be ridiculed to high heaven! Furthermore, firing more than one double volley at a time is LESS effective per-shot than only firing one, because the target is more likely to just disengage and outrun them. So stop giving me that Bullshit about people spamming because missiles are ineffective.
"lowering the rate of fire and doing nothing esle makes a weapon less effective, not less spam-worthy."
WRONG AGAIN. First, let us define spamming, shall we?
Spamming is the indiscriminate use of rapid-fire munitions or the method otherwise known as spray-and-pray. Unlike most games, VO has homing missiles that make spamming easy, and unfortunately, more effective than it is with other munitions.
Point is, spamming is DEPENDANT on a high rate of fire - if there's not a high rate of fire, then it's not spamming. FURTHERMORE, reducing the refire rate of missiles will not only PREVENT the player from spamming, but force them to choose their shots wisely and take only the most effective shots. This does not mean that missiles will be less effective, it only means that the player using them will need to exhibit some level of SKILL to use them, a requirement they are grievously lacking at current.
My respect of your opinion is rapidly degenerating...
Bad Idea.
That's a tracking cone, not a targeting cone, and it won't help anything. All it will do is make missiles useless.
"now people fire lots of missiles because one missile is worthless. if one missile were effective, expensove, and a sisable portion of your ammunition stores, then they'd only fire one or 2 at a time (note this apply to vollies of swarms rather than indavidual perjectiles)...
...if you want to stop spamming you have to make the weapon effective with relativly few shots, AND ensure that firing blindly will do no good."
WRONG. People fire lots of missiles because they're lazy bastards who can't/won't aim or engage their target fairly.
One volley of swarms is NOT ineffective. A single volley can almost kill a cent outright. If I were going to complain about Neutrons being ineffective because it took more than one hit to kill a ship with them, I'd be ridiculed to high heaven! Furthermore, firing more than one double volley at a time is LESS effective per-shot than only firing one, because the target is more likely to just disengage and outrun them. So stop giving me that Bullshit about people spamming because missiles are ineffective.
"lowering the rate of fire and doing nothing esle makes a weapon less effective, not less spam-worthy."
WRONG AGAIN. First, let us define spamming, shall we?
Spamming is the indiscriminate use of rapid-fire munitions or the method otherwise known as spray-and-pray. Unlike most games, VO has homing missiles that make spamming easy, and unfortunately, more effective than it is with other munitions.
Point is, spamming is DEPENDANT on a high rate of fire - if there's not a high rate of fire, then it's not spamming. FURTHERMORE, reducing the refire rate of missiles will not only PREVENT the player from spamming, but force them to choose their shots wisely and take only the most effective shots. This does not mean that missiles will be less effective, it only means that the player using them will need to exhibit some level of SKILL to use them, a requirement they are grievously lacking at current.
My respect of your opinion is rapidly degenerating...
>One volley of swarms is NOT ineffective. A single volley can almost kill a cent
>outright.
ie almost usless, a volley of 8 friggen missiles can't even destroy one of the least armored ships in the game! if you still think swarms are usefull asside from their spaming ability (or a one shot supprise to finish a close fight) then well, you have a very odd view of usefullness.
> People fire lots of missiles because they're lazy bastards who can't/won't aim or
>engage their target fairly.
if you want missiles to require skill you have to reward the use of skill. the truth is swarms are by deffinition spam-weapons. so they need a built in inacuracy (the change in flight patern i mentioned in an earlier post) and if you manage to get them all to hit they should AT LEAST be able to kill a cent.
however with regard to missiles as a whole (excluding swarms), they need restrictions to prevent you from chucking them over your sholder, and between 1 and 4 missiles should be able to kill most fighters (depending on the target and the exact missile used). now obviously in order to keep the weapons from becomming too powerfull they need limitations on ammunition and rate of fire.
and by the way only a complete moron expects his enemy to fight fair.
>if there's not a high rate of fire, then it's not spamming.
[state the painfuly obvious] um, chainfire [/state the painfuly obvious]
>If I were going to complain about Neutrons being ineffective because it took more
>than one hit to kill a ship with them, I'd be ridiculed to high heaven!
you should be riduculed to high heven for thinking that is even remotely relavent.
the neut is a rapid fire ammoless dumbfire perjectile weapon, missiles are slow-firing, guided weapons with restrictive ammunition supplys. (were any of those catagories the same.... at all?)
and besides, i think people spam plenty with neuts but that's just an opinion and not perticularly relevent to this conversation.
>reducing the refire rate of missiles will not only PREVENT the player from
>spamming, but force them to choose their shots wisely and take only the most
>effective shots.
or in reality.... not use missiles because they are can't kill a pilot who's even half awake...
seriously though, reducing the rate of fire does hinder spamm-tactics, but it does so soly by nerfing them. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS: nerf spam tactics, and simultaniously reward precise strikes with relatively few missiles.
>outright.
ie almost usless, a volley of 8 friggen missiles can't even destroy one of the least armored ships in the game! if you still think swarms are usefull asside from their spaming ability (or a one shot supprise to finish a close fight) then well, you have a very odd view of usefullness.
> People fire lots of missiles because they're lazy bastards who can't/won't aim or
>engage their target fairly.
if you want missiles to require skill you have to reward the use of skill. the truth is swarms are by deffinition spam-weapons. so they need a built in inacuracy (the change in flight patern i mentioned in an earlier post) and if you manage to get them all to hit they should AT LEAST be able to kill a cent.
however with regard to missiles as a whole (excluding swarms), they need restrictions to prevent you from chucking them over your sholder, and between 1 and 4 missiles should be able to kill most fighters (depending on the target and the exact missile used). now obviously in order to keep the weapons from becomming too powerfull they need limitations on ammunition and rate of fire.
and by the way only a complete moron expects his enemy to fight fair.
>if there's not a high rate of fire, then it's not spamming.
[state the painfuly obvious] um, chainfire [/state the painfuly obvious]
>If I were going to complain about Neutrons being ineffective because it took more
>than one hit to kill a ship with them, I'd be ridiculed to high heaven!
you should be riduculed to high heven for thinking that is even remotely relavent.
the neut is a rapid fire ammoless dumbfire perjectile weapon, missiles are slow-firing, guided weapons with restrictive ammunition supplys. (were any of those catagories the same.... at all?)
and besides, i think people spam plenty with neuts but that's just an opinion and not perticularly relevent to this conversation.
>reducing the refire rate of missiles will not only PREVENT the player from
>spamming, but force them to choose their shots wisely and take only the most
>effective shots.
or in reality.... not use missiles because they are can't kill a pilot who's even half awake...
seriously though, reducing the rate of fire does hinder spamm-tactics, but it does so soly by nerfing them. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS: nerf spam tactics, and simultaniously reward precise strikes with relatively few missiles.
"a volley of 8 friggen missiles can't even destroy one of the least armored ships in the game! "
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO! Jeez, what does it take to BEAT THAT CONCEPT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD?
Even the Advanced Railgun takes 4 hits to destroy the lightest of targets, and the Adv rail is an elite weapon reserved for only players with an abnormally high PK count. NO WEAPON IS SUPPOSED TO KILL SOMETHING IN ONE SHOT. NONE. Not the Swarmers, or any other missile.
"if you still think swarms are usefull asside from their spaming ability (or a one shot supprise to finish a close fight) then well, you have a very odd view of usefullness."
I'm not even going to address this one, because it's just plain wrong. Swarms are a VERY effective counterbalancing weapon for various loadouts, and serve many purposes admirably. The only downside, is that they also work as spam.
"if you want missiles to require skill you have to reward the use of skill."
"the truth is swarms are by deffinition spam-weapons. so they need a built in inacuracy (the change in flight patern i mentioned in an earlier post) and if you manage to get them all to hit they should AT LEAST be able to kill a cent."
Okay, first off, swarms are not by any practical definition 'spam-weapons'. Secondly, a change in flight pattern is not an inaccuracy. Thirdly, swarms should NOT be able to kill ANYTHING in one hit, EVER, not even a cent.
Was there a point to that and I just completely missed it?
"however with regard to missiles as a whole (excluding swarms), they need restrictions to prevent you from chucking them over your sholder"
Have you ever tried 'chucking [swarms] over your sholder (sic)'?
Because if not, I suggest you go try it. The probability of them hitting anything - even if the targeted ship is chasing right behind you - is virtually nil. It takes either an unnatural amount of luck, or a complete retard flying the target ship to hit them that way. So why do we need further 'restrictions' to 'prevent' people from 'throwing them over [their] shoulder'?
We Don't.
"and between 1 and 4 missiles should be able to kill most fighters (depending on the target and the exact missile used).
You seem to be having some trouble here... you keep coming back to this 'point' (if that's what you call it) of missiles should kill things in one hit...
Were you here for the Avalon? that 'missile' killed things in one hit... and if I recall correctly, it's not in the game anymore. Any guesses as to why? hmmm...
Anyway, this is the LAST time I say it... from now on, when you mention that a missile should be able to kill something in one hit or something like that, you can just assume that I would give it a firm rebuttal and pretend that I actually went through the trouble to do so, because I won't. So here it is, for the last time:
MISSILES ARE NOT, NOR SHOULD THEY EVER BE, INTENDED TO KILL THINGS IN ONE HIT.
"Now obviously in order to keep the weapons from becomming too powerfull they need limitations on ammunition and rate of fire."
They already have a severe limitation on ammo, and weren't you JUST arguing with me about how my suggestion for lowering the refire rate was bad? No blatant contradictions here, move along... </sarcasm>
"and by the way only a complete moron expects his enemy to fight fair."
So what you're really saying here, is that everyone who fights fairly is a complete moron? I guess you must not be one of those then...
"[state the painfuly obvious] um, chainfire [/state the painfuly obvious]"
Unfortunately, you're not a master of the obvious - because you completely missed the train there (to say nothing of the spelling)
If you would READ MY FORMER POST:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9080?page=5#164142
You would see that chainfire would not be a solution.
Besides which, chainfire is a method of artificially increasing your rate of fire at the expense of extra power per burst. Since we can safely assume that you would be using a double tube of swarms ANYWAY, whether you chainfire them or fire them in unison makes no difference - you're still a ninny.
"you should be riduculed to high heven for thinking that is even remotely relavent.
the neut is a rapid fire ammoless dumbfire perjectile weapon, missiles are slow-firing, guided weapons with restrictive ammunition supplys. (were any of those catagories the same.... at all?)"
And it's a million times more relevant than ANYTHING you have suggested so far, PLUS, it's spelled correctly!
If you can't figure out why a skill-less guided missile being more effective at killing something than a skilled and difficult shot with a neutron blaster is a BAD thing, then maybe you shouldn't be on the suggestion forum in the first place.
"or in reality.... not use missiles because they are can't kill a pilot who's even half awake..."
So what you're really saying is... wait, what the fuck ARE you saying? that sentence makes less sense than a stoned monkey at an Osbourne family reunion.
I'm just going to assume that you meant to make some coherent argument against the section of my previous post you had quoted:
>reducing the refire rate of missiles will not only PREVENT the player from
>spamming, but force them to choose their shots wisely and take only the most
>effective shots.
So then, what you said must be suggesting that by making them ineffective as indiscriminate spam weapons, we would in reality be making them worthless overall, because spamming is the only effective method for firing missiles, right?
well, TOUGH. because if you can't figure out how to hit something with one shot at a time, then maybe you SHOULDN'T be using missiles. In fact, I think that was the whole point of this discussion, wasn't it? Yes, yes it was...
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO! Jeez, what does it take to BEAT THAT CONCEPT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD?
Even the Advanced Railgun takes 4 hits to destroy the lightest of targets, and the Adv rail is an elite weapon reserved for only players with an abnormally high PK count. NO WEAPON IS SUPPOSED TO KILL SOMETHING IN ONE SHOT. NONE. Not the Swarmers, or any other missile.
"if you still think swarms are usefull asside from their spaming ability (or a one shot supprise to finish a close fight) then well, you have a very odd view of usefullness."
I'm not even going to address this one, because it's just plain wrong. Swarms are a VERY effective counterbalancing weapon for various loadouts, and serve many purposes admirably. The only downside, is that they also work as spam.
"if you want missiles to require skill you have to reward the use of skill."
"the truth is swarms are by deffinition spam-weapons. so they need a built in inacuracy (the change in flight patern i mentioned in an earlier post) and if you manage to get them all to hit they should AT LEAST be able to kill a cent."
Okay, first off, swarms are not by any practical definition 'spam-weapons'. Secondly, a change in flight pattern is not an inaccuracy. Thirdly, swarms should NOT be able to kill ANYTHING in one hit, EVER, not even a cent.
Was there a point to that and I just completely missed it?
"however with regard to missiles as a whole (excluding swarms), they need restrictions to prevent you from chucking them over your sholder"
Have you ever tried 'chucking [swarms] over your sholder (sic)'?
Because if not, I suggest you go try it. The probability of them hitting anything - even if the targeted ship is chasing right behind you - is virtually nil. It takes either an unnatural amount of luck, or a complete retard flying the target ship to hit them that way. So why do we need further 'restrictions' to 'prevent' people from 'throwing them over [their] shoulder'?
We Don't.
"and between 1 and 4 missiles should be able to kill most fighters (depending on the target and the exact missile used).
You seem to be having some trouble here... you keep coming back to this 'point' (if that's what you call it) of missiles should kill things in one hit...
Were you here for the Avalon? that 'missile' killed things in one hit... and if I recall correctly, it's not in the game anymore. Any guesses as to why? hmmm...
Anyway, this is the LAST time I say it... from now on, when you mention that a missile should be able to kill something in one hit or something like that, you can just assume that I would give it a firm rebuttal and pretend that I actually went through the trouble to do so, because I won't. So here it is, for the last time:
MISSILES ARE NOT, NOR SHOULD THEY EVER BE, INTENDED TO KILL THINGS IN ONE HIT.
"Now obviously in order to keep the weapons from becomming too powerfull they need limitations on ammunition and rate of fire."
They already have a severe limitation on ammo, and weren't you JUST arguing with me about how my suggestion for lowering the refire rate was bad? No blatant contradictions here, move along... </sarcasm>
"and by the way only a complete moron expects his enemy to fight fair."
So what you're really saying here, is that everyone who fights fairly is a complete moron? I guess you must not be one of those then...
"[state the painfuly obvious] um, chainfire [/state the painfuly obvious]"
Unfortunately, you're not a master of the obvious - because you completely missed the train there (to say nothing of the spelling)
If you would READ MY FORMER POST:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9080?page=5#164142
You would see that chainfire would not be a solution.
Besides which, chainfire is a method of artificially increasing your rate of fire at the expense of extra power per burst. Since we can safely assume that you would be using a double tube of swarms ANYWAY, whether you chainfire them or fire them in unison makes no difference - you're still a ninny.
"you should be riduculed to high heven for thinking that is even remotely relavent.
the neut is a rapid fire ammoless dumbfire perjectile weapon, missiles are slow-firing, guided weapons with restrictive ammunition supplys. (were any of those catagories the same.... at all?)"
And it's a million times more relevant than ANYTHING you have suggested so far, PLUS, it's spelled correctly!
If you can't figure out why a skill-less guided missile being more effective at killing something than a skilled and difficult shot with a neutron blaster is a BAD thing, then maybe you shouldn't be on the suggestion forum in the first place.
"or in reality.... not use missiles because they are can't kill a pilot who's even half awake..."
So what you're really saying is... wait, what the fuck ARE you saying? that sentence makes less sense than a stoned monkey at an Osbourne family reunion.
I'm just going to assume that you meant to make some coherent argument against the section of my previous post you had quoted:
>reducing the refire rate of missiles will not only PREVENT the player from
>spamming, but force them to choose their shots wisely and take only the most
>effective shots.
So then, what you said must be suggesting that by making them ineffective as indiscriminate spam weapons, we would in reality be making them worthless overall, because spamming is the only effective method for firing missiles, right?
well, TOUGH. because if you can't figure out how to hit something with one shot at a time, then maybe you SHOULDN'T be using missiles. In fact, I think that was the whole point of this discussion, wasn't it? Yes, yes it was...
Cunjo: <3
On a more serious note, trollish though his comments may seem, Cunjo makes some good points.
On a more serious note, trollish though his comments may seem, Cunjo makes some good points.
1. i've never said lowering the rate of fire was bad. my point was that doing nothing but reducing the rate of fire (as i believe you have sugested) would not reduce spam by encouraging carefull strategic use of missiles. it would however reduce spam by making seeking missiles less effective in general.
2. it is not stupid to hold yourself to a code of honor, but it is foolish to expect your oponents to do the same. the reason honor is worth bragging about is because it is a handycap. and besides, which is more glorious, killing an honerable oponent while being honorable, or killing a dishonerable oponent while maintaining your own honor?
3. swarms are inately a pro-spam weapon because they fire a volley of missiles not just one, at a time. it also does not help that you can fire several volies of swarms and then point in a different direction and turbo away (i believe that tactic is the one most ment to be discouraged)
4. the avalon was removed because it wasn't fast enough to be usefull in a dogfight, but had a large enough blast radious to be fired indiscriminately at stations and destroy anyone who was docking/un-docking from that station at the time. AND there were no ships large enough and slow enough to be a reasonable target. (disclaimer: this is all peaced together from things i heard from the alpha/beta people as i wasn't around in the avalon days)
as for nothing being able to kill any ship in one hit, well you may think there is a signifigant balance difference between 4 cheep rail-bullets being able to kill a traget with one trigger pull and one missile (or volley of missiles) that's more expensive that most ships (yes, i have been sugesting that additional change continiously) that can do the same thing, but allows the target to react and try to get out of the way, but i don't.
so to sumerise:
reducing the rate of fire and doing nothing else, will just make the swarms less comonly used, not because they take more skill to use but because they loose the one cheep tactic that made them popular in some circles. the issue is the most effective swarms can be made without spamming is less effectve than competing weapons.
and besides, to use one of your arguments: is there any real world analog to what you want? if i recall missiles are designed to destroy their targets in one hit, with as little skill as posable. and generaly missile systems capable of multiple launches in sucession are designed to engage multiple targets.
one last coment: your insults only hurt your arguments, it's best to try and use reasoning to make your point as you will be more likley to be heard by those who are intelegent enough to be worth convincing. after all terribleCabbage, fealt the need to point out that in spite of your flaims, your points were worth concidering.
2. it is not stupid to hold yourself to a code of honor, but it is foolish to expect your oponents to do the same. the reason honor is worth bragging about is because it is a handycap. and besides, which is more glorious, killing an honerable oponent while being honorable, or killing a dishonerable oponent while maintaining your own honor?
3. swarms are inately a pro-spam weapon because they fire a volley of missiles not just one, at a time. it also does not help that you can fire several volies of swarms and then point in a different direction and turbo away (i believe that tactic is the one most ment to be discouraged)
4. the avalon was removed because it wasn't fast enough to be usefull in a dogfight, but had a large enough blast radious to be fired indiscriminately at stations and destroy anyone who was docking/un-docking from that station at the time. AND there were no ships large enough and slow enough to be a reasonable target. (disclaimer: this is all peaced together from things i heard from the alpha/beta people as i wasn't around in the avalon days)
as for nothing being able to kill any ship in one hit, well you may think there is a signifigant balance difference between 4 cheep rail-bullets being able to kill a traget with one trigger pull and one missile (or volley of missiles) that's more expensive that most ships (yes, i have been sugesting that additional change continiously) that can do the same thing, but allows the target to react and try to get out of the way, but i don't.
so to sumerise:
reducing the rate of fire and doing nothing else, will just make the swarms less comonly used, not because they take more skill to use but because they loose the one cheep tactic that made them popular in some circles. the issue is the most effective swarms can be made without spamming is less effectve than competing weapons.
and besides, to use one of your arguments: is there any real world analog to what you want? if i recall missiles are designed to destroy their targets in one hit, with as little skill as posable. and generaly missile systems capable of multiple launches in sucession are designed to engage multiple targets.
one last coment: your insults only hurt your arguments, it's best to try and use reasoning to make your point as you will be more likley to be heard by those who are intelegent enough to be worth convincing. after all terribleCabbage, fealt the need to point out that in spite of your flaims, your points were worth concidering.
"1. i've never said lowering the rate of fire was bad. my point was that doing nothing but reducing the rate of fire (as i believe you have sugested) would not reduce spam by encouraging carefull strategic use of missiles. it would however reduce spam by making seeking missiles less effective in general."
This is backwards, and just plain wrong.
Therefore, the rest of your point is moot.
Have a nice day.
This is backwards, and just plain wrong.
Therefore, the rest of your point is moot.
Have a nice day.
well thatk you for not taking an enterir page to admit you don't understand why spam-tactics are used. untill you realise the difference between nerfing something and making it require skill to use i'd be waisting my time trying to talk weapon balance with you (as the many previous posts have increasingly prooven)
Are you really so oblivious as to believe you've proven something, or, more to the point, that anyone here thinks you're right?
That's really a pathetic attempt to reconcile yourself if you ask me.
http://spellingsociety.org/
That's really a pathetic attempt to reconcile yourself if you ask me.
http://spellingsociety.org/
I vote for either a "dumbfire" missile, or a missile where the tracking kicks in after a few seconds in case it missed the target.
I've only been playing for a few days, but I find the missiles impossible to use because of their slow speed, and their inaccurate "tracking" ability. The tracking is much better than it is in most games like this that I've played, meaning that they actually hit sometimes. The only game I've played that handles missiles better is FreeSpace 2.
I've only been playing for a few days, but I find the missiles impossible to use because of their slow speed, and their inaccurate "tracking" ability. The tracking is much better than it is in most games like this that I've played, meaning that they actually hit sometimes. The only game I've played that handles missiles better is FreeSpace 2.
I'm with Cunjo on this one, Lord Q. He's got a point.
Anyway, I also would like to point out that not all missiles are completely useless. Often, when I go raiding with friends, I try to make sure at least one person's packing at least one missile weapon. Here are a few of the basic loadouts we use:
Group One - Quick Trader Ambush (best for on-the-fly battles, e.g. a few players flying together)
1 Wraith Mk II/Wraith Mk III w/ 2 Neuts and a Stingray
1 IBG/Rev C w/ 2 Neuts
1 Vulture w/ 2 Yellowjacket Tubes OR 1 Yellowjacket Tube, 1 Neut
AND/OR 1 Hornet w/ 2 Neuts, 1 Yellowjacket Tube
Group Two - Convoy Assault (best for large, close-together groups of enemies)
1 Wraith Mk II/Wraith Mk III w/ 2 Neuts and a Jackhammer
1 IBG/Rev C w/ 2 Neuts
1 Atlas w/ a Yellowjacket Tube and a Jackhammer/PlasDev
AND/OR 1 Centaur w/ a Neut, and 2 Jackhammers/PlasDevs
Group Three - Large-Scale, Multiple-Target Assault
1 Centaur w/ a Neut, a Jackhammer, and a PlasDev
1 IBG/Rev C w/ 2 Neuts
1 Ragnarok w/ 2 Neuts, a Yellowjacket, a Plasdev, and a Jackhammer
These loadouts, though primitive, are unusually effective. Most of the time the Cent pilot goes in first to draw their fire in the opposite direction, then the other two ships come in, fire off a quick volley at range, then close in and open up with the short-range weapons.
Anyway, I also would like to point out that not all missiles are completely useless. Often, when I go raiding with friends, I try to make sure at least one person's packing at least one missile weapon. Here are a few of the basic loadouts we use:
Group One - Quick Trader Ambush (best for on-the-fly battles, e.g. a few players flying together)
1 Wraith Mk II/Wraith Mk III w/ 2 Neuts and a Stingray
1 IBG/Rev C w/ 2 Neuts
1 Vulture w/ 2 Yellowjacket Tubes OR 1 Yellowjacket Tube, 1 Neut
AND/OR 1 Hornet w/ 2 Neuts, 1 Yellowjacket Tube
Group Two - Convoy Assault (best for large, close-together groups of enemies)
1 Wraith Mk II/Wraith Mk III w/ 2 Neuts and a Jackhammer
1 IBG/Rev C w/ 2 Neuts
1 Atlas w/ a Yellowjacket Tube and a Jackhammer/PlasDev
AND/OR 1 Centaur w/ a Neut, and 2 Jackhammers/PlasDevs
Group Three - Large-Scale, Multiple-Target Assault
1 Centaur w/ a Neut, a Jackhammer, and a PlasDev
1 IBG/Rev C w/ 2 Neuts
1 Ragnarok w/ 2 Neuts, a Yellowjacket, a Plasdev, and a Jackhammer
These loadouts, though primitive, are unusually effective. Most of the time the Cent pilot goes in first to draw their fire in the opposite direction, then the other two ships come in, fire off a quick volley at range, then close in and open up with the short-range weapons.
havent seen many, if at all, any people using yellow jackets
> as for nothing being able to kill any ship in one hit, well you
> may think there is a signifigant balance difference between 4
> cheep rail-bullets being able to kill a traget with one trigger
> pull and one missile (or volley of missiles) that's more
> expensive that most ships (yes, i have been sugesting that
> additional change continiously) that can do the same thing, but
> allows the target to react and try to get out of the way, but i
> don't.
if you don't see the difference between swarms and rails for one-shotting enemies, you can't have played the game much. try using rails in multies, good luck on those one-shot kills. swarms are a different matter. as for dodging, dodging quad rails is at least as easy as dodging swarms and once the shot is gone you can forget about it -- swarms have this nagging tendancy to stick around.
sure, in theory you can one-shot people who don't see you coming, but that's just about as easy with swarm-ramming. actually, have you *ever* flown a quad rail setup?
> may think there is a signifigant balance difference between 4
> cheep rail-bullets being able to kill a traget with one trigger
> pull and one missile (or volley of missiles) that's more
> expensive that most ships (yes, i have been sugesting that
> additional change continiously) that can do the same thing, but
> allows the target to react and try to get out of the way, but i
> don't.
if you don't see the difference between swarms and rails for one-shotting enemies, you can't have played the game much. try using rails in multies, good luck on those one-shot kills. swarms are a different matter. as for dodging, dodging quad rails is at least as easy as dodging swarms and once the shot is gone you can forget about it -- swarms have this nagging tendancy to stick around.
sure, in theory you can one-shot people who don't see you coming, but that's just about as easy with swarm-ramming. actually, have you *ever* flown a quad rail setup?
I guess he meant that with a quad rail hornet you can go into a sector and zap a target (which doesn'T pay attention) from the distance. With swarms you'd need to get reasonably close first or your prey will hear the beeps and evade.
"vote for either a "dumbfire" missile, or a missile where the tracking kicks in after a few seconds in case it missed the target"
Welcome to VO, where flares don't qualify as 'dumbfire missiles'?
so.... yea, we have those. They're called rockets. As for the tracking kicking in at a delay, you pretty much get that with all missiles anyway, as they take a moment to orient themselves before really settling into an intercept trajectory.
"I guess he meant that with a quad rail hornet you can go into a sector and zap a target (which doesn'T pay attention) from the distance. With swarms you'd need to get reasonably close first or your prey will hear the beeps and evade."
and are you saying this is a bad thing? IMO, someone who snipes with a railgun deserves the kill a lot more than someone who just blasts into a sector and spews missiles everwhere... even so, I really don't think the railgun is effective at much further distances than missiles - you still have the vector inaccuracy to account for.
The combat and PVP portion of this game is supposed to be about skill, not about having bigger missiles. Trying to turn missiles into an inescapable primary assault munition is a BAD thing, because it rewards people who pay for big missiles and press fire repeatedly over those who actually take the time to learn to fight. It seems to me that LQ is trying to do essentially that, and that is stupid at best.
Welcome to VO, where flares don't qualify as 'dumbfire missiles'?
so.... yea, we have those. They're called rockets. As for the tracking kicking in at a delay, you pretty much get that with all missiles anyway, as they take a moment to orient themselves before really settling into an intercept trajectory.
"I guess he meant that with a quad rail hornet you can go into a sector and zap a target (which doesn'T pay attention) from the distance. With swarms you'd need to get reasonably close first or your prey will hear the beeps and evade."
and are you saying this is a bad thing? IMO, someone who snipes with a railgun deserves the kill a lot more than someone who just blasts into a sector and spews missiles everwhere... even so, I really don't think the railgun is effective at much further distances than missiles - you still have the vector inaccuracy to account for.
The combat and PVP portion of this game is supposed to be about skill, not about having bigger missiles. Trying to turn missiles into an inescapable primary assault munition is a BAD thing, because it rewards people who pay for big missiles and press fire repeatedly over those who actually take the time to learn to fight. It seems to me that LQ is trying to do essentially that, and that is stupid at best.
1. one of my favorate ships is a tri-rail valk. so yes, i do know how rails work, and i have to say, that you have a much better chance seeing a swarm volly comming and evaiding than you have of seeing a rail shot and evaiding. the sucess people have at evaiding rails is more acurately attributed to sucess of evasive manuvers at throwing off the rail-user's aim, than it is dodging a shot that otherwise would have hit. ie it's only a dodge if you began the manuver after you saw the perjectile, otherwise it's a miss.
2. no i don't want the game to be about who has the best missiles. but i also don't want missiles to be completely worthless. so i sugest that they be made deadly enough that they are an attractive weapon, but then put restrictions on the missile user that require precision and discression, in order for the attack to be sucessfull.
3. Cunjo, he's a new player, has it occured to you that he may not have been able to see flairs yet at the time of his post? there's no need to be condesending.
2. no i don't want the game to be about who has the best missiles. but i also don't want missiles to be completely worthless. so i sugest that they be made deadly enough that they are an attractive weapon, but then put restrictions on the missile user that require precision and discression, in order for the attack to be sucessfull.
3. Cunjo, he's a new player, has it occured to you that he may not have been able to see flairs yet at the time of his post? there's no need to be condesending.
"one of my favorate ships is a tri-rail valk. so yes, i do know how rails work, and i have to say, that you have a much better chance seeing a swarm volly comming and evaiding than you have of seeing a rail shot and evaiding. the sucess people have at evaiding rails is more acurately attributed to sucess of evasive manuvers at throwing off the rail-user's aim, than it is dodging a shot that otherwise would have hit. ie it's only a dodge if you began the manuver after you saw the perjectile, otherwise it's a miss."
I fail to see how this is relevant...
"no i don't want the game to be about who has the best missiles. but i also don't want missiles to be completely worthless. so i sugest that they be made deadly enough that they are an attractive weapon, but then put restrictions on the missile user that require precision and discression, in order for the attack to be sucessfull"
They're NOT worthless. Contrarily, while most missiles could use some beefing, swarms in particular could use a nerf! However, rather than simply making them less effective overall, my point has been to reduce their refire rate to something both plausable (it SHOULD take a while to reload all those missiles) and appreciable (Stop missile spamming!) Reducing the refire rate would force players to use missiles more wisely.
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!
If you're unable to use missiles effectively, I suggest you learn how to use them rather than ask for them to be made stronger or inescapable
Learn to fight, and stop complaining about not being able to use missiles to kill everyone without getting your hands dirty, you filthy noob.
"Cunjo, he's a new player, has it occured to you that he may not have been able to see flairs yet at the time of his post? there's no need to be condesending."
I was not being condescending; I was simply pointing out his error. Besides which, you don't think perhaps it would be wise to not suggest new weapons until you've actually seen all the ones that do exist already?
I fail to see how this is relevant...
"no i don't want the game to be about who has the best missiles. but i also don't want missiles to be completely worthless. so i sugest that they be made deadly enough that they are an attractive weapon, but then put restrictions on the missile user that require precision and discression, in order for the attack to be sucessfull"
They're NOT worthless. Contrarily, while most missiles could use some beefing, swarms in particular could use a nerf! However, rather than simply making them less effective overall, my point has been to reduce their refire rate to something both plausable (it SHOULD take a while to reload all those missiles) and appreciable (Stop missile spamming!) Reducing the refire rate would force players to use missiles more wisely.
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!
If you're unable to use missiles effectively, I suggest you learn how to use them rather than ask for them to be made stronger or inescapable
Learn to fight, and stop complaining about not being able to use missiles to kill everyone without getting your hands dirty, you filthy noob.
"Cunjo, he's a new player, has it occured to you that he may not have been able to see flairs yet at the time of his post? there's no need to be condesending."
I was not being condescending; I was simply pointing out his error. Besides which, you don't think perhaps it would be wise to not suggest new weapons until you've actually seen all the ones that do exist already?
you do realise that defensive use of missiles is spamming right? i mean if you don't expect your attacks to do anything but scare your oponent off, then how can you call it anything else?