Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
tankmayvin

Registered:
Posts: 407
Reply with quote  #16 
Are gats actually that bad at stopping missiles? Between decoys and large numbers of gats for small ship surface area I rarely take missile damage when tangling with modded cargo ships with large missile turret compliments.

I think a bigger problem is that with 800 meter of range, and high camera zoom it's possible to sit at 850 m and safely pick off turrets with gattling guns on fighters without any real concern.
Orange_Slime_

Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #17 
That is true, but back to the most important parts, The fact that gats are extremely accurate against fighters, but miss most missiles. My heavy armour fighter has had its cockpit shot out, I looked at the wreck, and the hole was barely big enough to see, let alone fire several shots thru. Turrets need a range extension, and a accuracy nerf. What kind of gunner on a battleship or a helicopter can punch a hole in a tin can from a half kilometre, hmm?
lostami

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #18 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goduranus
You can't be serious about current missiles dong too much damage, you just need some heavy armor. Light armror in game is only there for structural support. The've only got the thickness of a car door panel.


Okay that was sort of rude the way you put that.
But regardless, I am very serious, I have seen what a rocket does to heavy armor, not to mention how fast you can fire them, and how easily you can hit a large target with them, add to the mix that point defense is basically none existent

Currently it is my opinion, that they are to powerful against large ship heavy armor, I believe they should have some effect on light armor of large ships but not much or at all on large ship heavy armor.

Balancing has to be done with material costs, time to produce, effectiveness, and purpose.
The current missiles are cheap, fast, high yield, all purpose and indestructible, leaving no method of defense and an overwhelming ability to punch right through any target regardless of it's size or armor.

While heavy armor does hold out better, it is not by much, leading to low combat times with large ships being shredded with relative impunity by small craft, and with no reasonable or effective counter, as all weapons have the same max range of 800 this means you can duck in, fire and duck out before the first enemy munitions even get close to you, but your missile is already on the way and there is no stopping it.

This thread is about balance, not realism. As of right now though, combat times are short, missiles are king, and defense means hid, build small, don't engage in combat at all.

Orange_Slime_

Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #19 
Yes, Missiles are extremely cheap, Fire way too fast, and yet turrets can't hit them but they can punch out the cockpit of a ship from under 3 blocks of light armour, they shouldn't even be able to know where the cockpit is!
Scorpion00021

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 300
Reply with quote  #20 
I dont find missiles to be op at all.  They are fairly expensive and arent nearly as devastating to a ship as space nuke containers.  Realistically, big ships shouldnt be on the front lines unless you are expecting to lose them.  Thats what fighters are for.  Theres a reason our aircraft carriers hang back.
Orange_Slime_

Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpion00021
I dont find missiles to be op at all.  They are fairly expensive and arent nearly as devastating to a ship as space nuke containers.  Realistically, big ships shouldnt be on the front lines unless you are expecting to lose them.  Thats what fighters are for.  Theres a reason our aircraft carriers hang back.


I ask you this, what server have you played on where you have enough people with you, on your team, at a time, that you can support a fighter wing in combat?  Gatlings easily mow down stone storage containers of death, Plus, all you ever seem to need is all on ONE asteroid, No supply and demand system at all.
lostami

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #22 

Moving or holding still your ship is a target Scorpion, you say to keep them off the front line, in a third dimensional combat area like space, there is no front line they will simply go where it is docked and shoot it with missiles there. Your stations point defense systems will be just as ineffective as your ships and it will end the same way.

Honestly it's frustrating to see so many people who don't see this issue the same way as I do, especially when to me it all seems so clear, and easily understood.
But that is why we are human after all, and while I can respect others have opinions it does not mean I agree with any of them. Same goes for your view of my opinion I suppose.

tankmayvin

Registered:
Posts: 407
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange_Slime_
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpion00021
I dont find missiles to be op at all.  They are fairly expensive and arent nearly as devastating to a ship as space nuke containers.  Realistically, big ships shouldnt be on the front lines unless you are expecting to lose them.  Thats what fighters are for.  Theres a reason our aircraft carriers hang back.


I ask you this, what server have you played on where you have enough people with you, on your team, at a time, that you can support a fighter wing in combat?  Gatlings easily mow down stone storage containers of death, Plus, all you ever seem to need is all on ONE asteroid, No supply and demand system at all.


Ummm, you can easily make an ore bomb that is immune to gattling turrets for long enough to deliver the payload.
Scorpion00021

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 300
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange_Slime_


I ask you this, what server have you played on where you have enough people with you, on your team, at a time, that you can support a fighter wing in combat?  Gatlings easily mow down stone storage containers of death, Plus, all you ever seem to need is all on ONE asteroid, No supply and demand system at all.


I have.  Just two fighters are pretty deadly when used correctly.  You wont be decimating entire capital ships, but if your plan is to cause damage and get out, its pretty simple.  Damage means your enemy is spending time and resource repairing things instead of building up a larger fleet.

On the storage container nuke problem, a tactic we have often used is to fly two missiles in tight formation.  The first missile is a heavy armor missile full of decoy blocks, the second is the nuke.  The turrets aim at the decoy, buying enough time to get the nuke in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostami

Moving or holding still your ship is a target Scorpion, you say to keep them off the front line, in a third dimensional combat area like space, there is no front line they will simply go where it is docked and shoot it with missiles there. Your stations point defense systems will be just as ineffective as your ships and it will end the same way.

Honestly it's frustrating to see so many people who don't see this issue the same way as I do, especially when to me it all seems so clear, and easily understood.
But that is why we are human after all, and while I can respect others have opinions it does not mean I agree with any of them. Same goes for your view of my opinion I suppose.



It isnt about moving vs holding a ship.  You could be off doing doughnuts in space for all I care, just dont transmit your location for the entire universe to see.  I play in a 100x100km world and can honestly say that I have spent countless hours scouting and havent found ANYTHING.  And I am scouting in an intelligent fashion (putting up GPS coords for areas searched).   Keep your big ships back when on the offensive unless you want to lose a lot of hardware and keep those antennas off [smile]
EDIT:  sorry, should have mentioned... our world has around 10 active players.
lostami

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #25 

I'm sorry but I disagree, you telling me that the best way to deal with the balance issues is to simply hide or avoid combat, where my entire topic is about once combat begins, it always tilts overwhelmingly in the missiles favor.

Yes you can hide or stay away from combat, but that does not deal with the issues I am trying to bring to the front of this discussion, I am saying they do to much damage to easily and to quickly with no counter or defense against them. There not balanced, and this leads to people avoiding larger creations, avoiding combat, and avoiding each other.

A large ship should be able to take far more of a beating, it should be worth the effort to create, and it should not be able to be overwhelmed so easily, defense has been skipped over in the balancing, in favor of just being able to destroy things.

In a game where everything is in favor of the attacker there will not be any balance, people will simply build crude simple damage boats, it makes the engineering aspect of the game pointless, cockpit, weapons reactors, done, simply have more fire power and you win, and even if you lose it costs you far less then the person who put time into there creation. Large ships are nothing but time sinks and target practice.

There is no engagement where a large ship would be worth all the damage it would take.
holding back a massive capital ship because your worried a  fighter or two can overwhelm it's defenses, and do massive amounts of damage before you swat them or they pull away to get more missiles is damaging to the whole mechanic of combat.

A fly should not be able to hurt an elephant, this is a game, we can't ignore the issues by hiding in deep space and refusing to use the very things we build because a gnat is more dangerous then a lion.

tankmayvin

Registered:
Posts: 407
Reply with quote  #26 
Meh. Don't agree with this at all. If anything well designed capships can absorb too much damage from 200mm missiles and heavy guns.

Heavy armor skeleton with Spaced heavy armor sections interlaced between light armor makes a ship hull more or less invulnerable to 200mm missile bombardment. Most of the damage is going to be to steel components, which are trivially cheap and superficial.

As long as the important guts are outside of the rocket blast volume it takes a huge number of missiles to punch through spaced armor. Large gattling gun arrays are actually better for cutting into hulls, and doubly better for sniping off turrets and important bits.

I have several heavy fighter designs that can shrug off multiple 200mm hits without catastrophic damage because they use space pods to detonate the missiles away from anything important.

In SE, volume and distribution are your best protection and that means using heavy armor strategically to protect the bits close in, and using light armor to buy you volume.

I've never see one of these so called "flimsy" capital ships built by anyone, frigate size gunboats aside. If anything most players design their own torpedoes and ore bombs precisely because missiles are just too damn weak against cap-ships.
kumquats

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #27 
The answer is actually pretty simple.  In game missiles, though currently reported as 200mm are functionally a lot similar to smaller rockets as someone mentioned.  An easier solution to the PD dilemma and the rocket range dilemma is to add balanced cannon to the game, with respectable ranges.  Explosive rockets in-game seem silly to me anyway since it'd be more effective to load those 200mm up with propellant and mass to make the most effective kinetic penetrator possible.  But again the whole rocket and PD debate is moot if cannon are introduced, for several reasons.
A: The cannon rounds don't carry propellant, all of their velocity is achieved up front and so would be more effective at range. (speed of projectile)
B: PD is worthless against cannon as the PD could not impart a velocity change which could appreciably deflect a cannon round due to the difference in mass.
C: the rockets are objects, with physics in game, a cannon round would not need physics, a simple ray trace would suffice (adjusted for time to target), saving on processing in large engagements and allowing the projectile to have an in-game range limited only by the loaded distance.  This could quite likely add emergent gameplay by pushing large ship engagements to beyond LOS ranges.

Rockets would then be relegated to a supporting weapon system for chewing up lightly armored targets or exploiting gaps in enemy defenses as the cannon took over as the primary weapon system.  An explosive rocket makes sense in that role.

There are several excellent cannon mods on the workshop now to include Keen's own Sniper mod.  I trust that sooner or later Keen will refine and balance several of them for inclusion into the vanilla game.

Scorpion00021

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 300
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostami

I'm sorry but I disagree, you telling me that the best way to deal with the balance issues is to simply hide or avoid combat, where my entire topic is about once combat begins, it always tilts overwhelmingly in the missiles favor.

Yes you can hide or stay away from combat, but that does not deal with the issues I am trying to bring to the front of this discussion, I am saying they do to much damage to easily and to quickly with no counter or defense against them. There not balanced, and this leads to people avoiding larger creations, avoiding combat, and avoiding each other.

...



I think you are misreading me.  I'm not saying to avoid combat at all.  I'm suggesting you keep your carriers and capital ships out of combat whenever possible.  I dont put heavy armor on any of my fighters because I am expecting to lose them.  I keep them light nimble, and cheap.  If you want to get into capital ship combat you should consider adding a LOT more heavy armor.  This game isnt Star Wars with the handwavium bubble shields, ships in combat will be taking damage IMMEDIATELY.

As I stated earlier, pvp in survival mode is about mitigating losses and applying tactical combat strategies.  You wouldnt send in an aircraft carrier to an enemy port to bombard it.  Instead, you would keep the carrier somewhere safe while the fighters or light ships do their job.

Check out the Ticonderoga(CV-14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ticonderoga_(CV-14) or the USS Laffey http://www.patriotspoint.org/news_events/uss-laffey-attacked-65-years-ago-today/
Orange_Slime_

Registered:
Posts: 211
Reply with quote  #29 
I think, that this is going to be unbalanced no matter how we cut it, cut the missile strength, and they are useless, increase the turret tracking speed, and fighters are guaranteed dead, increase turret targeting on missiles only, then few will ever get thru, increase armour strength, would null designs all over the workshop.
There will always be an unbalanced part to everything but particle physics
Cy83r

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 68
Reply with quote  #30 
Funny tidbit: there was a special on a US destroyer making gunruns at an obsolete hull that was being scuttled.  They made a pass with their CIWS and had to do it by hand targeting because the automatics couldn't figure out how to shoot properly at something as big as a ship and started bugging out.

Just make gattlings and other PD-oriented turrets spread really bad against ships and (possibly also, but to a lesser extent) fighters while having an extremely small spread radius against rockets and missiles.

I'd also like to see a "bullet drop" on gattling-style weapons instead of your typical "hit everything but the senter of the target" approach because those bullets are being flung out of a spinning barrel array and are themselves most likely spun by rifling, actually the bullet spin wouldn't matter since there's no atmo to impart rotational drift on the round, BUT those spinning barrels are going to create a fair bit of drift- futhermore, I'd like to see gatts push towards ~100 RPM like they're supposed to, all we have right now are fancy-dancy machine guns (then again, barrel heating in a vacuum would drive fire rates lower).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!