|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
29
   |
Posted - 2013.03.18 02:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Null being the close-range Tier 2 ammunition used by Blasters in Eve to melt hard targets, which is the obvious choice for a ground installation to take down a fairly slow moving target like the MCC.
So really, just wondering here...
Why missiles? Null cannons do not fire missiles. No cannon fires missiles.
Is this a beta derp or a dev derp? |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 02:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote: No cannon fires missiles. Null cannons fire missiles 
Not after I shame them for this oversight. |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 03:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Baron Mingus wrote:It must fire an anti matter warhead. I mean, naked anti matter might not be so good to just keep around. What the shell is made of I don't even want to know.
Don't know enough about physics other than matter and anti-matter touching = bad.
That said, the exterior of the shell obviously has to be some kind of regular matter as it has to be handled by outside devices which are also composed of matter.
The interior of the shell is another story altogether. Something would have to bind the anti-matter in place without causing it to actually touch the shell itself until the moment of detonation. Your guess is as good as mine as to how that gets pulled off. I don't think the lore writers ever got as far as attempting to explain the know-how. |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 03:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:A cannon is just a force which launches projectiles ane with some current day arty being rocket assisted this would allow missiles to carry payloads of null (or whatever is in that ammo) and project it much farther than a blaster could.
Happy?
No. Because that isn't what happens.
It goes straight up into the sky and then comes straight down. The Missile is also burning fuel on takeoff, which it would not need to do if it was being assisted by a cannon. There is no burst of speed on takeoff. It's not a cannon. |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 03:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:Good
I've noticed that at a point after launch, you also have to consider thar if it launched via the onboard guidance and engines, why wouldn't it go directly towards the mcc after leaving the barrel?
I'm fairly certain at one point during beta they actually changed directions midflight and did a 90 degree turn straight into the side of the MCC. It looked awkward to some dev, I suppose, so they changed it so it went all the way up and came straight down.
The missile trail effects are also crap, with the trail usually appearing in front of the missiles if you look closely enough.
But this is all getting rather side tracked. |
Himiko Kuronaga
SyNergy Gaming
34
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 07:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vespasian Andendare wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Null being the close-range Tier 2 ammunition used by Blasters in Eve to melt hard targets, which is the obvious choice for a ground installation to take down a fairly slow moving target like the MCC. In case you're wondering why it's called Null, it's because its a shell containing anti-matter.
So really, just wondering here...
Why missiles? Null cannons do not fire missiles. No cannon fires missiles.
Is this a beta derp or a dev derp? lol @ null being "the close-range Tier 2 ammunition..."--ever hear of Void?
For Blasters, all range is close range. Let's not get technical now.
Null or Void, we're still talking about blaster ammo, not missiles. |
|
|
| |
|