Vaaliant
   |
Posted - 2005.05.14 09:45:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Diego Starcrash
Edited by: Diego Starcrash on 14/05/2005 01:40:13
Edited by: Diego Starcrash on 14/05/2005 01:38:43
Edited by: Diego Starcrash on 14/05/2005 01:38:17
Missiles do not fire directly on a target.
They plot an intercept course and explode not when they make contact, but instead when the targeting computer says the explosion will hit the ship.
If the ship is too fast, it would be far less accurate, and physics just restricts the explosion.
A light missile, with it's smaller size and smaller blast radius would have a better chance at keeping up with the target's velocity; and possesses a much smaller blast radius. Rather than running through the explosion, the craft would absorb more of it; usually from the front. This concentrates damage in one locale.
It's the same as the following concept...
A stiletto high heel damages a marble floor far, far more than an elephants foot because more of the weight (or in the case of missiles, blast) is focused into a smaller area.
Edit: I should note, though, the same theory doesn't apply to larger ships; a large ship has more surface area to hit, therefore more of the explosion makes contact with the surface. THEN the bigger payload comes into play.
An explosion from a missile does not do full damage, or even equal damage, in a full 360 degree radius around it. Only partial damage in all the areas around it. Usually the damage of a missile is judged by the intensity of the blast at it's center, assuming this is what makes contact. This damage is then rediated out around this area into the blast radius.
Edit: Edit: Stupid typos...
You know I've been thinking on this subject, and to me...well the logic doesn't make sense. I mean seriously you're basically saying at the more simplistic level that a blast field/sphere (in which every point of damage at all points in the sphere is the same) that completely envelopes an object completely does LESS damage to said object than a field/sphere than can only partially cover a target? I mean that doesn't make much sense at all. See the problem here is that the blast field is larger than the frigate, if damage dropoff is being calculated from distance to center of blast then quite simply put missiles need something like what turrets have currently in the sense of misses, excellent hits and complete wrecking hits.
Mind you I agree that logicially a light missile should have a better chance to engage said frigate than a torpedo, but theres also things called lucky hits and good precision. AND if we're assuming stuff like proximity targetting then even a frigate thats sitting still for a torpedo should be completely obliterated or at least terribly damaged by the explosion rather than simply taking like 10-15 damage.
Also as regards to the current slew of changes I think the biggest change I'm most horrified by is the siege launchers only firing torps. This essentially forces the raven pilots to choose a mix of torp launchers, cruise missile launcher/assault missile launchers and potentially either NOS or some kind of missile launcher for defender missiles.
If we take current NPCs in missions as an example its pretty difficult to break the tanks on BS npcs with a 4 torpedo salvo even if you're tossing cruise missiles at it, this is doubly and triply so for the 1-2+ mill bounty rats. The devs have stated before they don't want to eliminate solo play but they want to encourage team play. Well thats fine but at least give us the ability to hit at least the BS and cruisers for full damage with torps and cruise missiles respectively (pumping out 90-120 missiles for one cruiser is NOT what I call a cost effective solution).
|