| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
149
   |
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
Supernus Gigas wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote: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.
with ZERO GRAVITY as well...
EDIT: but then we'd need jetpacks and more sopply depots (refuel) |
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
149
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:22:00 -
[32] - Quote
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:CaoticFox wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote: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. u r ANARCHIDE? DUDE! wazzup! 'Ello love.
seen Grease? I havent in over a month... |
Lynn Beck
Granite Mercenary Division
Top Men.
659
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
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.
Under 28db
Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14)
Selling SP: 10k SP per 100k ISK.
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
149
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lynn Beck wrote: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.
it does, in efficiency against ARMOR & not SHIELDS... think about it.
& ur RAIL logic is exponentially flawed
every action has an equal & opposite reaction
(every FORCE is reciprocated by an equal & opposite FORCE)
[wanna know why they are mounted on Large SHIPS, inline with keel?] |
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
352
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
message from Godin: missiles needs nerfing, not buffing......... |
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
150
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:39:00 -
[36] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: missiles needs nerfing, not buffing.........
no... they require MORE CPU/PG for a reason, MORE SP for a reason... theyre not suppose to be equal |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1724
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:42:00 -
[37] - Quote
Chibi Andy wrote:well if you want to be that realistic then i suggest the MLT tanks price should increase, there's no way that a tank would cost less than a suit.
It's MLT
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
150
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
the ONLY way to reduce recoil in RAIL technology is to reduce the MASS of the projectile... NO RECOIL = NO PROJECTILE |
Supernus Gigas
Star Giants
199
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
CaoticFox wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: missiles needs nerfing, not buffing......... no... they require MORE CPU/PG for a reason, MORE SP for a reason... theyre not suppose to be equal
Maybe I was a bit harsh calling you an idiot. I apologize, I sometimes get a bit too passionate about Missiles. We can at least agree on that. Missile are a huge resource hog and require quite an SP investment to be any good. The last thing they need to be is nerfed.
FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
3901
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 21:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
CaoticFox wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:CaoticFox wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote: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. u r ANARCHIDE? DUDE! wazzup! 'Ello love. seen Grease? I havent in over a month...
Grease is taking a break. To much IRL things, you know how it is.
My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity
And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
|
Xender17
Ahrendee Mercenaries
EoN.
1005
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 21:52:00 -
[41] - Quote
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.
CCP Saberwing "Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction"
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
159
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 22:06:00 -
[42] - Quote
Xender17 wrote: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.
explosive fuel campared to a powdered fuse... ur LOGIC IS UNDENIABLE
Im on the FORUMS because im P!$$ED off @ the game.
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
159
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 22:14:00 -
[43] - Quote
c'mon guys... u DO have an arguement against me, u just havent found it yet... tho slightly unrelated, there IS a plausable counter (HINT: its to the decreased dmg at CLOSE range, EVEN WITH the factor of low inertia at its initial acceleration climb)
Im on the FORUMS because im P!$$ED off @ the game.
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
159
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 22:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Xender17 wrote: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.
as too fuel percentage to payload... do u know ANYTHING about SPACE SHUTTLE launches?
Im on the FORUMS because im P!$$ED off @ the game.
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
3894
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 22:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
Have we ever tested that? Let's ask the government to launch an ICBM at Quebec and another at Latvia, and observe the results.
The UN can't possibly get mad at us when they hear what the testing is being done for.
I am your scan error.
|
Supernus Gigas
Star Giants
203
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 22:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
CaoticFox wrote:Xender17 wrote: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. as too fuel percentage to payload... do u know ANYTHING about SPACE SHUTTLE launches?
Space Shuttles aren't 1 meter long and they don't travel a max distance of 300m before exploding. We're talking about explosives here, not space exploration.
FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!
|
Anarchide
Greedy Bastards
1816
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 19:54:00 -
[47] - Quote
Please refrain from dropping missiles over my land.
My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
|
D legendary hero
Ultramarine Corp
1492
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 19:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
Supernus Gigas wrote: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 Latvia; the one I launched at the Moon Latvia 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.
EDIT: Come on guys. Is this really such an unreasonable proposal that you have to bring up physics and gravity and fuel consumption and criticize my choice of location because it doesn't have oxygen? Geesh. I just want Missiles to be a little bit better.
this makes sense. but trolls will prevent it sorry.
Sou o Defendeiro dos derrubados_Pronto saberá justiça
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |