|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
   |
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nomed Deeps wrote:I think alot of the problem is all of the AV weapons have delays to fire yet tanks can spew constant, unlimited fire from three different points. Therefore, even if there are multiple forge gunners, the forge gunners can all be wiped out by one tank before their forges are fully powered to fire. The delay in AV weapons also give tanks time to repair where tanks can too easily run into red zones to repair. Therefore, I think AV weapon delays should be severely lessened or removed. At the very least increase tank reload times with limited rounds.
The only way tanks can spew "constant unlimited fire" is with Missile Turrets.
Another of the problems everyone has with them.
If they had a reload delay after each shot, or after a certain number of missiles, it wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be better balanced against the other weapons.
Railguns have charge time, Blasters overheat, Missiles... just keep killing.
EDIT: I'm not sure if I'm in favour of limited ammo for vehicles, by the way. But having a limit to how many missiles you can spam in one go would be nice, and a reload delay after a specific number of shots would work. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 12:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size.
That could get VERY interesting... |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 15:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
EnglishSnake wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. That could get VERY interesting... That's not a bad idea tbh would give forgers a chance and keep missles useful Could still have dum fire missles their but at reduced damage A lock on time? Really bad idea Thats like a BC trying to lock onto a frig, would take forever aswell as the other turrets not requiring a lock on either so why bother with missiles at all Forge gunners already have a chance as it is, they have never had it so easy
I DON'T agree with the suggestion of dumbfire dealing reduced damage, and I don't even like the idea of being able to lock onto infantry (unless Swarms can do it too - also with a lock speed penalty).
But if they made vehicle Missile Turrets which can be dumbfired OR locked on at the user's discretion, and deal full damage when dumbfired, but without the precision they currently have so they lose effectiveness vs. infantry over longer ranges, would you support that? Because I think it would be interesting at least, and has potential. Also, IF they introduce dropsuit locking, then the lock speeds should be FASTER for Missile Turrets than for Swarm Launchers, because as you said, doing otherwise would be a ridiculous over-nerf.
Locking onto a well-dampened Scout should take about as long as the worst-case scenario with a Militia Swarm Launcher in the current build. And Swarm locks on infantry should take significantly longer than that. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 18:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
EnglishSnake wrote:How would the missiles work? would they be able to turn and track a target like the SL does but obv not go around cover because its OP tbh
Obviously, that needs fixing on Swarms anyway. But yes, tracking. If you didn't get that, would would be the point of locking on?
Quote:Also depends on lock on time
Like I said, I think it would be too hard a nerf if they took as long as Swarms to lock on. And as mentioned, there would be the lower-precision dumbfire option, so you could spread missiles over an area without having to lock.
Quote:Sometimes its easier to hammer the spot than to lock on that way your keeping them in cover and not wasting time if they do pop out only to lose lock
Lock itself would be good for long distance but the majority of the time you can dumbfire from certain spots and hit the target but then again would it be OP towards dropships and bolas dropping off vehicles
And hopefully that will be how it works. You're not likely to land a direct hit, but you might be able to keep the target in cover or get a few lucky hits near enough to catch them with splash - if you're close, splash should be pretty likely to land where you want it to. This would only change your approach to long-range fire, because you couldn't reliably hit a target from great distance, you'd be spraying the entire area randomly, missing more often than you hit anything unless you can get a lock.
Quote:I wouldnt really be too fussed but i dont think missiles should cause diff damage if its locked or dumbfired because am i carrying 2 diff missiles? no so the diff damage is a stupid idea but for the launcher itself i think atm its not needed as of yet
Agreed. Not saying it's needed, just that it could be interesting and a good way to both make missiles unique AND improve balance on them. |
|
|
| |
|