EVE Search - Projectile weapons: whats the deal?

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Projectile weapons: whats the deal?

» 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)
Dobesov	Posted - 2004.11.20 03:10:00 - [1] So, here is what i dont get. Projectile weapons use bullets, bullets contain their own fuel and energy. Why in the hell does it take so much energy to run them, i mean for the love of god, lasers which work directly and completly off of ship power seem to be less consumptive for their technology than normal old lead slinging guns. does anyone have a good reason for this or are we just trying to screw the minmatar and generally make things not make sense? i mean shouldnt all projectile weapons have a minimal power use just for moving the turret, i mean we do have to buy the ammo for this stuff right? thanks, best reguards -Dobesov
Dobesov	Posted - 2004.11.20 03:10:00 - [2] So, here is what i dont get. Projectile weapons use bullets, bullets contain their own fuel and energy. Why in the hell does it take so much energy to run them, i mean for the love of god, lasers which work directly and completly off of ship power seem to be less consumptive for their technology than normal old lead slinging guns. does anyone have a good reason for this or are we just trying to screw the minmatar and generally make things not make sense? i mean shouldnt all projectile weapons have a minimal power use just for moving the turret, i mean we do have to buy the ammo for this stuff right? thanks, best reguards -Dobesov
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.20 04:26:00 - [3] It is so people can't just fit all their hi-slots with the biggest guns. EVE is not realistic get over it. -------------------------------------------------- Thanks for killing my corporation ISD. ISD Motto: Changing history, one air brushed photo at a time.
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.20 04:26:00 - [4] It is so people can't just fit all their hi-slots with the biggest guns. EVE is not realistic get over it. -------------------------------------------------- Thanks for killing my corporation ISD. ISD Motto: Changing history, one air brushed photo at a time.
Dobesov	Posted - 2004.11.20 04:37:00 - [5] thats a terrible excuse! if you want excuses you could easily do something like up the CPU requirements witht he excuse of needs to do complex trajectory calculations to hit stuff. or something that makes more sense make ammo weigh more, so it takes up inventory. there is no reason that a projectile gun should take more energy than an energy weapon. -Dobesov
Dobesov	Posted - 2004.11.20 04:37:00 - [6] thats a terrible excuse! if you want excuses you could easily do something like up the CPU requirements witht he excuse of needs to do complex trajectory calculations to hit stuff. or something that makes more sense make ammo weigh more, so it takes up inventory. there is no reason that a projectile gun should take more energy than an energy weapon. -Dobesov
Alena Sparta	Posted - 2004.11.20 05:58:00 - [7] Originally by: Dobesov So, here is what i dont get. Projectile weapons use bullets, bullets contain their own fuel and energy. Why in the hell does it take so much energy to run them, i mean for the love of god, lasers which work directly and completly off of ship power seem to be less consumptive for their technology than normal old lead slinging guns. does anyone have a good reason for this or are we just trying to screw the minmatar and generally make things not make sense? i mean shouldnt all projectile weapons have a minimal power use just for moving the turret, i mean we do have to buy the ammo for this stuff right? thanks, best reguards -Dobesov The armature of a projectile weapon would require considerable power, even in zero-gee (inertia still prevails over mass), to aim the turrets with sufficient agility. Of all the turret types (except for missiles), I think projectile turrets would be the most massive. Its firing and ammo loading structure would have to be part of the motive portion of the system, along with the barrels, requiring powerful motors.
Alena Sparta	Posted - 2004.11.20 05:58:00 - [8] Originally by: Dobesov So, here is what i dont get. Projectile weapons use bullets, bullets contain their own fuel and energy. Why in the hell does it take so much energy to run them, i mean for the love of god, lasers which work directly and completly off of ship power seem to be less consumptive for their technology than normal old lead slinging guns. does anyone have a good reason for this or are we just trying to screw the minmatar and generally make things not make sense? i mean shouldnt all projectile weapons have a minimal power use just for moving the turret, i mean we do have to buy the ammo for this stuff right? thanks, best reguards -Dobesov The armature of a projectile weapon would require considerable power, even in zero-gee (inertia still prevails over mass), to aim the turrets with sufficient agility. Of all the turret types (except for missiles), I think projectile turrets would be the most massive. Its firing and ammo loading structure would have to be part of the motive portion of the system, along with the barrels, requiring powerful motors.
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.20 11:20:00 - [9] Originally by: Dobesov thats a terrible excuse! if you want excuses you could easily do something like up the CPU requirements witht he excuse of needs to do complex trajectory calculations to hit stuff. or something that makes more sense make ammo weigh more, so it takes up inventory. there is no reason that a projectile gun should take more energy than an energy weapon. -Dobesov Well the devs are just being lazy and balancing weapons mainly by PG. To be honest the power requirments for most weapons bare no relation to reality (please can I have a 6 MW rail gun?). -------------------------------------------------- Thanks for killing my corporation ISD. ISD Motto: Changing history, one air brushed photo at a time.
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.20 11:20:00 - [10] Originally by: Dobesov thats a terrible excuse! if you want excuses you could easily do something like up the CPU requirements witht he excuse of needs to do complex trajectory calculations to hit stuff. or something that makes more sense make ammo weigh more, so it takes up inventory. there is no reason that a projectile gun should take more energy than an energy weapon. -Dobesov Well the devs are just being lazy and balancing weapons mainly by PG. To be honest the power requirments for most weapons bare no relation to reality (please can I have a 6 MW rail gun?). -------------------------------------------------- Thanks for killing my corporation ISD. ISD Motto: Changing history, one air brushed photo at a time.
Aleis	Posted - 2004.11.21 04:19:00 - [11] come one guys big phrase here "It's a game" if you want super realism hit the more obviuse points such as why do ship 'bank' when turning? in outer space there no reason to, and to stop your ship would actualy have to do a 180 and hit full throttle in the opisit direction that it was traveling, instead of 'costing to a stop' Besides most Proj guns require less Grid than and other turret type, just match em up. they are actualy fairly low regs
Aleis	Posted - 2004.11.21 04:19:00 - [12] come one guys big phrase here "It's a game" if you want super realism hit the more obviuse points such as why do ship 'bank' when turning? in outer space there no reason to, and to stop your ship would actualy have to do a 180 and hit full throttle in the opisit direction that it was traveling, instead of 'costing to a stop' Besides most Proj guns require less Grid than and other turret type, just match em up. they are actualy fairly low regs
Qutsemnie	Posted - 2004.11.21 05:29:00 - [13] Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:35:23 Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:33:04 Powergrid really doesnt have a real life analogy. Oh wait it might. It might be thought of as difference in potential energy available. Which is different then energy lost to unrecoverable processes. But its still pretty abstract. All these statements and stuff apply to "cap use per a shot" [energy used per a fire was brought up] which is in game and behaves exactly as you outlined it should here. For example the biggest projectiles use something like 3 cap [energy] per a shot. The biggest lasers use something like 80 cap [energy] per a shot.
Qutsemnie	Posted - 2004.11.21 05:29:00 - [14] Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:35:23 Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:33:04 Powergrid really doesnt have a real life analogy. Oh wait it might. It might be thought of as difference in potential energy available. Which is different then energy lost to unrecoverable processes. But its still pretty abstract. All these statements and stuff apply to "cap use per a shot" [energy used per a fire was brought up] which is in game and behaves exactly as you outlined it should here. For example the biggest projectiles use something like 3 cap [energy] per a shot. The biggest lasers use something like 80 cap [energy] per a shot.
TelJanin	Posted - 2004.11.30 22:40:00 - [15] Originally by: Qutsemnie Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:35:23 Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:33:04 Powergrid really doesnt have a real life analogy. Oh wait it might. It might be thought of as difference in potential energy available. Which is different then energy lost to unrecoverable processes. But its still pretty abstract. All these statements and stuff apply to "cap use per a shot" [energy used per a fire was brought up] which is in game and behaves exactly as you outlined it should here. For example the biggest projectiles use something like 3 cap [energy] per a shot. The biggest lasers use something like 80 cap [energy] per a shot. Well said, I'm impressed.
TelJanin	Posted - 2004.11.30 22:40:00 - [16] Originally by: Qutsemnie Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:35:23 Edited by: Qutsemnie on 21/11/2004 05:33:04 Powergrid really doesnt have a real life analogy. Oh wait it might. It might be thought of as difference in potential energy available. Which is different then energy lost to unrecoverable processes. But its still pretty abstract. All these statements and stuff apply to "cap use per a shot" [energy used per a fire was brought up] which is in game and behaves exactly as you outlined it should here. For example the biggest projectiles use something like 3 cap [energy] per a shot. The biggest lasers use something like 80 cap [energy] per a shot. Well said, I'm impressed.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE 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 EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online 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, EVE-Search.com. 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.