|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1553
   |
Posted - 2013.08.23 01:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
Exmaple Core wrote:
Lets take the average of 2 missiles splash damage, we will use the the fragmented because it has the largest blast.
104 damage per missile. 2 missiles= 208 damage if 3 missles hit it would be 312 damage.
Just some nit picking here: if it shoots four shots, why do you only account for 2-3?
Secondly, did you account for Mass Driver - Missile Travel times? |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1553
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 02:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Exmaple Core wrote:
because it is extreemly rare for all 4 missles to hit, the only time they would is if you are about 6 to 10 meters away from your target, but even then its not guaranteed because of the unpredictable missile spread, it is never consistant. but by then you would be AV naded to death and wouldent bother shooting because your trying to get away. The travel times would favor the mass driver, its a CQC weapon and missles are long to medium range, you do not CQC with missles
Allow me to just nit pick some more here. I'm not against nor for your argument, just trying to clear some things up.
You are applying the variable of spread to Large Missiles, that is what you have just stated. Therefore you can not apply all 4 shots into factoring, that is what you have said.
However you are implying that the Mass Driver is always hitting its mark as well, that it is in point blank range where travel time is not even a factor.
So the Missile launcher in your scenario never hits 100% but the mass driver does? That seems biased. I understand that missiles spread without control but with the mass driver there is travel time, a shot can surely be missed. |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1553
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 02:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Small turrets aren't that hard to beat.
I would rather use a standard flaylock than a proto small cycle missile- they're absolutely terrible.
Yes indeed, should we talk about how small blasters are beat by Assault rifles? Or how the forge gun out damages railguns? |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1553
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 02:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Exmaple Core wrote:
It certainly can, your right. That depends on the skill of the mass driver user, as well as the missile tanker. Not sure if you ever missile tanked before but it is extreemly easy to miss all 4 shots with fragmented missiles, its just as possible for the tanker to completely miss. though the mass driver user should have an advantage in hitting infaintry considering most missiles have a range of 3ms and mass drivers have a range from 4m to 8.8 depending on what MD their using
I've used large missiles and yes they need fixing.
But thank you for admitting a little bias here.
Also, why are you comparing a non-broke weapon to a severely broke weapon?
|
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1557
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
So wait I don't understand. Exmaple you said that both are broke. Now are you saying that the Mass Driver is OP and that Large Missile Turrets are broke or that infantry splash weapons are > than large splash turrets
I really think you shouldn't compare the two. You are bringing up the serious and necessary issue of how broken large missile turrets are while mingling it with the heated debate on mass drivers. It's just a bad combo man that's how you get people refusing to listen. They take it that you want to nerf mass drivers and bring up a single argument to be beat to death like baby chimp in a Gorilla cage.
Nerfing Infantry weapons according to Large Vehicle Weapons does not seem right but buffing Large Vehicle Weapons according to Infantry Weapons makes more sense. It's like how converse statements don't mean the same as the original statement.
I honestly think this should be purely on the nature of Large Missiles and what needs to be done. It would be more productive. It's like how most Buff Small Railgun Threads are quite serious and full of content. |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1557
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Exmaple Core wrote:
Im saying converse statements to let ppl know that both weapons are broken, yes. This is straight proof that both weapons are not balanced, it shows how terrabad the missiles are by being outdone by standard lv infaintry guns and shows the exact calculations of how devistating mass drivers are, expescially on proto level. this is undisputable math, it shows both are broken in oppisite extreems
I don't think that works though. In order to have the numbers viable you would have to throw in a splash weapon that is balanced. Small Missile Turrets could work or maybe flaylock. Forge guns no.
You see when you use a broke and a "OP" weapon for reference, you either prove that one is OP or that the other is broken but not both. Including a non-broke/OP weapon for a third reference would make more sense because then you would have a basis of how broke or OP the two weapons are. That way you could prove that one is OP and that one is broken by reference of the balanced weapon.
The point to OP weapons is that they are unbalanced, that they are superior by all means. So by using a balanced weapon, if the mass driver is better than it by all means, it is OP. Using that same balanced weapon, you could take large missile launchers and prove that they are broken because they would be sub par to the balanced weapon.
I feel like a professor of arguments right now.
Stear clear Breakin Stuff, now is not the time. |
|
|
| |
|