DUST Search - Why are the Null cannons firing missiles instead of Null?

All Channels

General Discussions

Why are the Null cannons firing missiles instead of Null?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

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?
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 99	Posted - 2013.03.18 02:28:00 - [2] - Quote Lol... good stuff
DUST Fiend Immobile Infantry 2082	Posted - 2013.03.18 02:29:00 - [3] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: No cannon fires missiles. Null cannons fire missiles
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming 30	Posted - 2013.03.18 02:30:00 - [4] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: No cannon fires missiles. Null cannons fire missiles Not after I shame them for this oversight.
knight of 6 ZionTCD Legacy Rising 100	Posted - 2013.03.18 02:37:00 - [5] - Quote aa installations (bigger ones) that fire null charges at MCCs would be awesome.
Dr Debo Galaxy GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention 247	Posted - 2013.03.18 02:40:00 - [6] - Quote place holder maybe
Baron Mingus Algintal Core Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2013.03.18 02:45:00 - [7] - Quote 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.
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming 30	Posted - 2013.03.18 03:05:00 - [8] - 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.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 510	Posted - 2013.03.18 03:12:00 - [9] - Quote 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?
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming 30	Posted - 2013.03.18 03:18:00 - [10] - 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.

Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 510	Posted - 2013.03.18 03:32:00 - [11] - Quote 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?
Kane Fyea BetaMax. CRONOS. 97	Posted - 2013.03.18 03:37:00 - [12] - 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? It's aimed for the critical hit spot on the MCC?
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming 30	Posted - 2013.03.18 03:41:00 - [13] - 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.
Vespasian Andendare Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2013.03.18 04:55:00 - [14] - Quote 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?
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 515	Posted - 2013.03.18 04:56:00 - [15] - 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? How didn't I notice this!
Jotun Hiem The Tritan Industries 505	Posted - 2013.03.18 05:18:00 - [16] - Quote deleted
Syther Shadows The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar 39	Posted - 2013.03.18 06:30:00 - [17] - Quote 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? so you know how big your ship is compared to that turret ? you also know how bit the bullets are ? think about it
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 2050	Posted - 2013.03.18 06:53:00 - [18] - Quote On the topic of anti-matter containment, it can (and has been) done using modern technology. Magnetic containment. Basically, you need to keep it floating in a "bubble" of electromagnetic energy that's finely balanced to make sure the anti-matter doesn't come in contact with regular matter.
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming 34	Posted - 2013.03.18 07:56:00 - [19] - 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.
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 335	Posted - 2013.03.18 08:56:00 - [20] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: 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. lol, now I know how others feel when I geek out on games I play.



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.