DUST Search - Missile Damage Drop-Off

All Channels

General Discussions

Missile Damage Drop-Off - Get Rid of it.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 192	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:17:00 - [1] - Quote 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 it just doesn't make any damn sense! *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
Chibi Andy Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 868	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:21:00 - [2] - Quote 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. YOU HAVE BEEN SCANNED!!! sç+a¦át¢èa¦á)sç+ (pâÄa¦át¢èa¦á)pâÄs+íGö+GöüGö+
Suanar Daranaus Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 151	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:21:00 - [3] - 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; 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 it just doesn't make any damn sense! Agreed
darkiller240 WarRavens League of Infamy 338	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:25:00 - [4] - Quote CCP logic Railgun shoots a slug at high speed no dropoff damage Missile launcher has damage dropoff again CCP logic "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 138	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:31:00 - [5] - 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort
Aramis Madrigal SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 122	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:31:00 - [6] - Quote Some of the damage a missile does is as a result of kinetic energy and unspent fuel. A missile with a relatively small warhead may have a significant portion of the damage profile attributable to the aforementioned factors. It's not completely unreasonable that there be some damage drop off with range. That's not to say that it's appropriate in this case, only that it's plausible. -Aramis
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 845	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:38:00 - [7] - Quote CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort 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. Dropship Specialist Kills- Incubus: 4; Pythons: 3 Gêå1; Other DS: 31 Gêå2; Tanks: 33 Gêå2 2/2
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 193	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:40:00 - [8] - Quote CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort 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? 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. *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
Billi Gene 451	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:44:00 - [9] - Quote CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort you're assuming the fuel isnt spent during the first 20 metres of flight. Pedant, Ape, Troll. My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 138	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:51:00 - [10] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort 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. this is not EVE... DUST has GRAVITY... ie: more fuel consumption
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 138	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:52:00 - [11] - Quote Billi Gene wrote: CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort you're assuming the fuel isnt spent during the first 20 metres of flight. in THAT instance, it would FALL like the Plasma Cannon... ^^^ GRAVITY..
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 138	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:53:00 - [12] - Quote Supernus Gigas wrote: CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort 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. acceleration curve... AGAIN inertia v/s GRAVITY. ^^^
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 195	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:29:00 - [13] - Quote @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. Quote: when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort Rocket Science 101; The amount of unspent fuel in your rocket should never be a deciding factor in its explosive payload. Quote: this is not EVE... DUST has GRAVITY... ie: more fuel consumption 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. Quote: acceleration curve... AGAIN inertia v/s GRAVITY. ^^^ edit: if it launched from ur vehicle at MAX VELOCITY ... ur tank would flip... (RAIL RECOIL on a perpendicular shot prior to 1.7 would nearly lift tank to one side 'two-wheel /track") 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? *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
Heathen Bastard The Bastard Brigade 845	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:36:00 - [14] - Quote CaoticFox wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: CaoticFox wrote: 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; 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. when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort 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. acceleration curve... AGAIN inertia v/s GRAVITY. ^^^ edit: if it launched from ur vehicle at MAX VELOCITY ... ur tank would flip... (RAIL RECOIL on a perpendicular shot prior to 1.7 would nearly lift tank to one side 'two-wheel /track") I miss that. Compressed rails could be used for emergency brakes. If you hear the words "WORTH IT!" look about, something hilarious just happened.
Kharga Lum Arcana Imperii Ltd. Northern Army. 277	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:42:00 - [15] - Quote The quality of this product fits the standards we've all come to expect about it's point of origin.
noob cavman Tickle My Null-Sac 537	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:45:00 - [16] - Quote Its bad enough you send missiles from across the map to make me nose dive my ads. now you want to be the new railgun!? I want to be a caveman! Ccp: DENIED YOU DRUNK British ninja cowboy scout, logi, heavy
Kharga Lum Arcana Imperii Ltd. Northern Army. 278	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:51:00 - [17] - Quote noob cavman wrote: Its bad enough you send missiles from across the map to make me nose dive my ads. now you want to be the new railgun!? Only missile turret installations have infinite range. Their damage is negligible.
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 198	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:55:00 - [18] - Quote noob cavman wrote: Its bad enough you send missiles from across the map to make me nose dive my ads. now you want to be the new railgun!? Large Missile Turrets(The ones on HAVs) only have a max range of 300m. I'd hardly call that across the map. *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
Absoliav Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 130	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:56:00 - [19] - Quote CaoticFox wrote: when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort I'm sorry, where exactly did you get you engineering degree, ACME? No, the amount of fuel left in any projectile missile is inconsequential to it's destructive output, that kind of thinking would work if you were firing bottle rockets at your neighbor's house, please don't talk down to people like you know anything about engineering. The only propelled projectile that would be susceptible to falloff is the PL as it generates a self-decaying ball of death, it would make sense if it got weaker as it traveled, as has nothing to keep it charged.
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 145	Posted - 2014.02.03 19:59:00 - [20] - Quote Supernus Gigas wrote: @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. Quote: when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort Rocket Science 101; The amount of unspent fuel in your rocket should never be a deciding factor in its explosive payload. Quote: this is not EVE... DUST has GRAVITY... ie: more fuel consumption 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. Quote: acceleration curve... AGAIN inertia v/s GRAVITY. ^^^ edit: if it launched from ur vehicle at MAX VELOCITY ... ur tank would flip... (RAIL RECOIL on a perpendicular shot prior to 1.7 would nearly lift tank to one side 'two-wheel /track") 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
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 149	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:01:00 - [21] - Quote CaoticFox wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: @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. Quote: when a missile explodes, it explodes its remaining (excess) fuel as well, ie: bigger boom, more excellerant... and visa-versa if it detonates at its max range, ie: less fuel remaining, smaller boom its only rocket science 101... u surely could have figured this out on ur own with minimal effort Rocket Science 101; The amount of unspent fuel in your rocket should never be a deciding factor in its explosive payload. Quote: this is not EVE... DUST has GRAVITY... ie: more fuel consumption 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. Quote: acceleration curve... AGAIN inertia v/s GRAVITY. ^^^ edit: if it launched from ur vehicle at MAX VELOCITY ... ur tank would flip... (RAIL RECOIL on a perpendicular shot prior to 1.7 would nearly lift tank to one side 'two-wheel /track") 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 the lazy spelling is due to my using a DS3 and not a keyboard bck 2 my shtct spllz
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3897	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:02:00 - [22] - Quote 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. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
Asha Starwind VEXALATION CORPORATION Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage 277	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:02:00 - [23] - 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. Then why does a smartphone cost just as much as an medium range desktop or a motorcycle costing just as much as a small car? 32db Mad Bomber.
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 149	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:04:00 - [24] - Quote 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. wow... this guy thinks beyond his console (QUANTUM PHYSICS / MECHANICS)
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3897	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:06:00 - [25] - Quote 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. wow... this guy thinks beyond his console (QUANTUM PHYSICS / MECHANICS) Look back in my edit and I explain why you are right. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3898	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:11:00 - [26] - Quote Asha Starwind wrote: 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. Then why does a smartphone cost just as much as an medium range desktop or a motorcycle costing just as much as a small car? Because they know people are willing to pay that price. Economics 101. They cost A LOT less to make. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 149	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:13:00 - [27] - Quote 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. id love to push u closer to lvl 4 furum warrior, but the PS3 browser wont allow the 'LIKE' buttons use... +1
CaoticFox Axis of Chaos 149	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:15:00 - [28] - Quote 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!
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 199	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:15:00 - [29] - Quote 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. *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3899	Posted - 2014.02.03 20:19:00 - [30] - Quote 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. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.