This is something that, surprise-surprise, defies all logic. Why do Missiles have a damage drop-off? Maximum range, sure that makes sense, they only have so much fuel to burn, but the damage drop-off doesn't make sense. If I launch an ICBM at Quebec, and I launch another one at the Moon; the one I launched at the Moon isn't going to explode any less than the one I launched at Quebec. Of course there are more prevalent issues at hand concerning HAVs, but a problem's a problem.

I'm sure the fuel needed to fly <250m is inconsequential to damage output. And if that's the case why don't Eve missiles, that have much large fuel capacities and fly for 10's or 100's of kilometers, not suffer dropoff damage? It's a poor game mechanic.

you're assuming the fuel isnt spent during the first 20 metres of flight.

Please don't insult my intelligence. Then why, TELL ME WHY, does a missile do less damage at a certain distance and then keeps doing that same amount of damage for any distance past this? Shouldn't it do less by your logic? Have you seen the size of these missiles? They as big if not bigger than an FGM-148 Javelin which has an effective range of up to 2500m! Do you think an FGM-148 does significantly less damage at that range because it has a bit less fuel? Surely you could have figured this out on your own with minimal effort.

@CaoticFox

You are an idiot. There I said it, I'm not one for insulting people outright, but you earned it.

Let's do a little piece-by-piece of all the stupid things you've said.



Rocket Science 101; The amount of unspent fuel in your rocket should never be a deciding factor in its explosive payload.



Gravity? Really? REALLY? Your argument is gravity? The only ballistics that are affected by gravity in Dust are MDs and PLCs. But according to you, so do Missiles? Quit making up bullshit.



What the hell are you even going on about? Do you know the exact figures for the amount of force expelled by each rocket? You do realize this isn't ArmA right? This is not a goddamn real-life ballistics physics simulator. All I want is for Missiles to make sense, and be a bit more useful. But you, for some un-godly reason keep fighting with your lazy spelling and idiotic logic. Why do you hate Missiles? Why?

do u?


dont get mad because u have no idea of fuel-based traveling explosions mechanics

A missile that hit Quebec would actually have a bigger blast radius than one that hit the moon. This is because the moon lacks oxygen, which is needed for combustion.

A missile that hit Quebec would actually have a bigger blast radius than one that hit the moon. This is because the moon lacks oxygen, which is needed for combustion.

And Chaotic Fox is right; a missile in space would burn less fuel because there is no resistance. It could actually shut off its engine and drift in the same direction, at the same speed. It would only need to turn on its engine to increase speed or change course.

A missile that hit Quebec would actually have a bigger blast radius than one that hit the moon. This is because the moon lacks oxygen, which is needed for combustion.

And Chaotic Fox is right; a missile in space would burn less fuel because there is no resistance. It could actually shut off its engine and drift in the same direction, at the same speed. It would only need to turn on its engine to increase speed or change course. Although gravity is a very important factor, the bigger factor would be atmospheric resistance; air.

Alright smart-ass, I'll edit the OP to someplace with oxygen.

'Ello love.

Logic and physics would also dictate that a chemical rocket would still do Kinetic Damage, seeing as the warhead is not made out of Ballistics gel or some other flabby thing.

Also- the warhead itself is made of metal, so the explosion of the warhead would send shrapnel, indicating grenade like properties.

And... Rails IRL have no recoil.
There's no 'explosion' to produce recoil. Recoil is only produced by the explosive force of the projectile's propellant.
E.g. Missiles should have infinitely more recoil as a rail.

Rail rifles and sniper rifles would also have no recoil.

message from Godin: missiles needs nerfing, not buffing.........

The argument that missiles should have less of a boom because it uses more fuel the further it goes...
Is like saying dynamite well be smaller because you didn't use enough cord/wiring on it.
Fuel is almost always an extremely small % in comparison to the actual payload.

The argument that missiles should have less of a boom because it uses more fuel the further it goes...
Is like saying dynamite well be smaller because you didn't use enough cord/wiring on it.
Fuel is almost always an extremely small % in comparison to the actual payload.