Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#61
Rabiator wrote: In general, I think it might not be possible to make every type of craft attractive to use. Either the bombers can deliver meaningful attacks, then you might see an age of the carrier as in real life. Or they are easily brushed off as you say, then the battleship rules space.
that depends on what weapons are available to bombers, if bombers can only use big, single bombs to inflict effective damage then any denser PD would defeat them except at point blank range
but if each of them can fire a couple of missles at short range they could be pretty effective, despite good PD coverage, as some of them would be able to get through


Hyperion wrote:That's the nature of a game where you are thrown into a living universe that doesn't give a damn about you any more than any other AI, isn't it? would it be any different than your first meeting with a highly advanced gunship and blows you to dust in seconds? Couldn't it happen that your first kill had friends in high places who bring the wrath of God upon your head? you wouldn't stand a chance... tough for you I guess.
its a difference if just the quantity of the attack is too much for you to defend against or the quality of attack is impossible to defend against

think of an RPG, your party is strong enough to survive any attack, but all of a sudden a hole opens up in the ground and your party falls down and dies

any hacking/jamming mechanic could become that hole that just opens up.

so i'd limit it to bigger enemies which you could conventionally only engage with any "bigger" ship, at which point advanced jamming and E-war comes available to you and you have to think about strategic issues.
to make e-war an opt-in mechanic, when you get bigger and begin to engage bigger foes you have to expect your missles to be redirected and stuff

i'd say the advanced forms of e-war, like letting ships crash into each other or creating convincing fake ships should not be available on smaller ships.
some weaker forms, like being able to confuse fighter-to-fighter missles could be available to smaller ships, but nothing that gets you directly into problems just because a passive effect is active in your general area.

Hyperion wrote: Hacking doesn't seem to be making it into LT 1,so the exact nature of how to build a cat and mouse around it is just speculation. presumably though there will be some level of defense that even the most hacking averse player can get...
well, we could use a system like my damge type mechanic for this, some kinds of electronic attacks are more effective against certain defenses and ineffective against others
Hyperion wrote: Chaff may deflect missiles, but expands your radar presence, broadcasting holograms may make hitting you difficult, but consumes a lot of energy and that has to come from somewhere like weapons or thrusters, hacking may bring down enemy systems and get the enemy to attack themselves, but can be time consuming and make you vulnerable to physical attacks while you try to take over their systems...
well, chaff would not increase your ships signature, as they would fail their design requirement if they did, being a bigger target than your ship :P
they'd only increase "your" signature over longer ranges, over which your ship and the chaffs become one blob on the others radar

i agree with the rest
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#62
AbhChallenger wrote:And again I counter that by saying increased point defense makes bomber craft close range attacks pointless. In my X3 AP game bomber craft are virtually nothing to me because my perfect point defense mosquito defense system knocks their torpedoes out every time.
That works fine with small to medium bomber attacks.

With one or two M7M going nuts, you'll need more. =)

I recommend an M7M (even a bomber) of your own on countermissile duty. That's Mosquito Defense on steroids. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#63
Gazz wrote:
AbhChallenger wrote:And again I counter that by saying increased point defense makes bomber craft close range attacks pointless. In my X3 AP game bomber craft are virtually nothing to me because my perfect point defense mosquito defense system knocks their torpedoes out every time.
That works fine with small to medium bomber attacks.

With one or two M7M going nuts, you'll need more. =)

I recommend an M7M (even a bomber) of your own on countermissile duty. That's Mosquito Defense on steroids. =)
I was just trying to play to get some achievements (The two X-Treme ones) but decided that it was just going to be too much of a grind to get em. (Get pwned by magic race response fleets or spend an hour jumping systems to find station defense missions) I figure I will likely try XRM again once the next version is out while I wait for LT.

To get back on topic. I still believe beefing up point defense to defeat M7M style spam attacks from across the system is the wrong way to handle it. M7M type craft in LT should be siege craft at short range or harassment craft at long range (Forcing the enemy to devote hardpoints/ECM craft to defend logistics from torpedo attacks) While the ECM rule "Once a missile locks onto a phantom contact or signal" makes it hard/impossible to attack capital ships/stations (Which can spoof long range attacks easily) from an unfair range.

Thankfully this is not an issue that needs a solution before the beta. I believe the problem of torpedo spam will show quite early in 2015.
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#64
From my point of view there is no problem. If we keep in mind that for EVERY possible form of attack there has to be at least one counter attack.
Against missile spam there is imo point defense and ECM. But to spam missiles you have to research it first. That leaves the opponent the chance to research for another attack- or defense system. So the more you specialize into missile spam the more vulnerable you get for other attacks.

Oh another way to nerf it: Cargo space. Make the missiles bigger and the spam-frigate needs to recharge after every attack

Or "the solution" from the dev-videos:
http://youtu.be/KN3tKT0E0t8?t=21m50s
:D
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#65
N-Joy wrote:From my point of view there is no problem. If we keep in mind that for EVERY possible form of attack there has to be at least one counter attack.
Against missile spam there is imo point defense and ECM. But to spam missiles you have to research it first. That leaves the opponent the chance to research for another attack- or defense system. So the more you specialize into missile spam the more vulnerable you get for other attacks.

Oh another way to nerf it: Cargo space. Make the missiles bigger and the spam-frigate needs to recharge after every attack

Or "the solution" from the dev-videos:
http://youtu.be/KN3tKT0E0t8?t=21m50s

Again you can use point defense to negate spam. At the cost of ruining bomber craft if it is boosted too much. Again I like ECM if the rule of "Lock a ghost/decoy and it can't switch back" is applied (This prevents firing with the intention of sensor "burn through")

As far as vulnerable. How is short range missile spam any weaker than any other defense?
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#66
Even if i kinda miss your answer but some possibilities of warfare came into my mind.

Against defense points: Armored / Shielded missiles. Expensive but good against big targets
Against missile spam: "Nova" modules (kinda what smartbombs are in Eve online). An explosion around the own ship to kill everything (small) within a small radius: Image But for your ECM solution there should be a counter attack (ECCM for example)
With so much possibilities the main task is to find a way that everything is balanced.
:D
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#67
Oh geez. Not AoE weapons... PLEASE

ECCM is more of a ship to ship thing. "Mah big gunz wont lock HALP!!!11" Missiles are smaller and can't afford ECCM (Or atleast they should not) and should not because then we would be right back to where we started. Teh spam.

I kinda sorta like the idea you have for armored/shielded torpedoes for bombers for short range attacks. It would allow what I want (Defeating spam from long range) I personally think ECM has better gameplay value but anything to preserve the value of bomber craft.
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#68
You cannot prevent spam with your "relock once" rule, as it just causes switching to unguided rockets against ECM protected stations.
It would maybe even increase spam as unguided rockets will likely tend to be cheaper/smaller as an equivalent strenght .
So we can as well use a system thats not against logic
(Why should the missle not relock on a valid target once its close enough to differentiate them?)


ECCM are just better sensors or sensors which use bands which the ECM doesnt jam.
With missles having much more limited sensor bandwiths "missles should not have ECCM" comes naturally, as you have much less to jam than against a ships sensor.


We could also make ECM a semi-active system, not just a field that leads missles off course but more or less targetted EMP's that jam missle sensor and forcefully throws them off course.
So you wouldnt have to lead them away carefully, but throw them into another direction, hpong that they dont stop tumbling when pointing at you again
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#70
I guess armored/shielded missles would change more in long range spamming situations, where you shave of percentages of the incoming missles.
Because it makes a difference if you can shoot down 75% or 50% of the incoming missles.

on short ranges its more significant if you can engage all missles in the short time you have, refore rate and turret placement/ rotation rates are more significant
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#71
Cornflakes_91 wrote:I guess armored/shielded missles would change more in long range spamming situations, where you shave ovv percentages of the incoming missles.
Because it makes a difference if you can shoot down 75% or 50% of the incoming missles.

on short ranges its more significant if you can engage all missles in the short time you have, refore rate and turret placement/ rotation rates are more significant
I was thinking along the lines of Long = Little armor/shield generator to have more devoted to range. And short (Bombers want to launch just out of main point defense) Fast, armored/shielded, but very short range. The game has "drag" so long range needs less weight/moar prop rather than fire and slowly coast. You could then safely boost short range PD to counter long range spam without killing bomber craft.

Kinda sucks. An ECM solution would have had better gameplay value. However, at the very least this gives more use for PD corvettes to guard convoys from long range attacks.
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#73
Cornflakes_91 wrote:well, ECM would still have lots of use for mobile targets, as you cant engage a ship over long range with unguided missles.

and on short range it wouldnt make that much of a difference for bigger ships
Well my big worry was long range torpedo spam. (Which I guess I agree that armored/shielded vs range fixes) For the other types of missile use. I trust a balance can be found.

While my combat focus will focused towards carriers. I will have to obviously do missile research to arm the bomber craft of the fleet. So I look forward to some interesting medium and short range missile combat. (Mainly corvettes as I need the basic hardpoint model to arm them with PD interceptor missiles (convoy work) so I mise well use them to have some fun)

Maybe my fleet will see the return of the Drake! *Cries in the corner* Why do you hate Drakes CCP!! WHY!
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#74
I hope there will be ALL of the possibilities in vanilla.
Everyone got his own style of playing games, some like elegant solutions like ecm, some others like to see explosions :)
And if the tech tree is complex enough there will be the funniest combinations at an engagement.

I like all ideas and imo it is important to keep them in the game, so playing LT a second or third time (from the beginning) won't be boring.


Edit: The Drake was great, but i had more fun playing with the Golem and later on with the Tengu (Missile Spam FTW)
:D
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#75
Maybe we could have the bomber munitions separate close in. similar to a cluster bomb. i think it would be more effective for anti capital roles as it could disable/destroy surface installations
"Life isn't the perfect place everyone makes it out to be, the only way for it to become bearable is to love." Rebel

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron