Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |

Thomas Gore
Black Dawn Rising
190
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:23:00 -
[91] - Quote
Buhhdust Princess wrote:I will camp planets in my anti-destroyer moros. Until this changes.
Nice. Link us the killmail on your Moros when it happens :) |

Allko
Zero Tax services
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:28:00 -
[92] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:It may be worth remembering just how big and powerful the shells are that we use in EVE when compared to standard ground based weaponry. Gallente destroyers with rails will usually fire 125mm shells, slightly smaller than the 130mm shells fired by modern naval destroyers.
We know how much damage that kind of real life shell can cause, now imagine those shells being filled with anti-matter! And now imagine a shell half a metre across made of the same stuff travelling a good percentage the speed of light, the kind fired from a 425mm battleship railgun. The kinetic damage alone would vaporise a large portion of the area. Add in the anti--matter and you wouldn't just kill a few DUST soldiers, you would vaporise a few square kilometres. assuming the payload of the destroyer shell is a cylinder with 115mm diameter and 600mm height, its volume would be pi*600mm*(100mm/2)^2 = ~4,712,389mm^3 It would reasonable to use some relatively heavy antimatter as ammunition, for the sake of the argument lead ions will do. Lead has a density of 11,340 kg/m^3 or 1.1340 *10^-5 kg/mm^3, therefore our (anti-)lead cylinder would have a mass of ~53.44kg. Using E = m*c^2 one antimatter shell would be converted into ~4.8*10^18 joules, the equivalent of 1,148 megatons of TNT. The most powerful nuclear weapon detonated on earth so far had a yield of 57 megatons. One single destroyer shell - the equivalent of 20 extremely powerful hydrogen bombs. Those DUST mercs better watch out.
I have very limited knowledge about physics so dont troll me too harsh but maybe some1 have seen one of the Mythbusters series where those dudes use different type of weapons to shoot in a pool. Now the most impressive was a 50mm sniper rifle. It shure did a large splash in the water but just like the other weapons... it`s bullet was disintegrated in the watter within the first 20-50cm
Now does the same effect appear when u shoot a projectile from a hybrid gun because atmosphere is pretty mutch the same as watter only less denser ??? |

Thomas Gore
Black Dawn Rising
191
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:31:00 -
[93] - Quote
Allko wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:It may be worth remembering just how big and powerful the shells are that we use in EVE when compared to standard ground based weaponry. Gallente destroyers with rails will usually fire 125mm shells, slightly smaller than the 130mm shells fired by modern naval destroyers.
We know how much damage that kind of real life shell can cause, now imagine those shells being filled with anti-matter! And now imagine a shell half a metre across made of the same stuff travelling a good percentage the speed of light, the kind fired from a 425mm battleship railgun. The kinetic damage alone would vaporise a large portion of the area. Add in the anti--matter and you wouldn't just kill a few DUST soldiers, you would vaporise a few square kilometres. assuming the payload of the destroyer shell is a cylinder with 115mm diameter and 600mm height, its volume would be pi*600mm*(100mm/2)^2 = ~4,712,389mm^3 It would reasonable to use some relatively heavy antimatter as ammunition, for the sake of the argument lead ions will do. Lead has a density of 11,340 kg/m^3 or 1.1340 *10^-5 kg/mm^3, therefore our (anti-)lead cylinder would have a mass of ~53.44kg. Using E = m*c^2 one antimatter shell would be converted into ~4.8*10^18 joules, the equivalent of 1,148 megatons of TNT. The most powerful nuclear weapon detonated on earth so far had a yield of 57 megatons. One single destroyer shell - the equivalent of 20 extremely powerful hydrogen bombs. Those DUST mercs better watch out. I have very limited knowledge about physics so dont troll me too harsh but maybe some1 have seen one of the Mythbusters series where those dudes use different type of weapons to shoot in a pool. Now the most impressive was a 50mm sniper rifle. It shure did a large splash in the water but just like the other weapons... it`s bullet was disintegrated in the watter within the first 20-50cm Now does the same effect appear when u shoot a projectile from a hybrid gun because atmosphere is pretty mutch the same as watter only less denser ???
The disintegration of the bullet happened because of too high acceleration (or deceleration) on the bullet. It doesn't matter what the source of the deceleration is. Considering that the hybrid shells are designed to withstand a quick acceleration to sublight velocities, I'd say they withstand the deceleration when hitting the atmosphere fairly well.
EDIT: I realize I wasn't specific enough. In the bullet case, the highest force (deceleration) was focused onto the front of the bullet, making the rear of the bullet wanting to try to go forward faster than the front end. This difference in acceleration in different parts of the bullet is what tears it apart. An electromagnetic accelerator, such as a railgun, would probably accelerate the shell quite uniformly and as a result, it could still be torn apart when decelerated by a medium, where the most force is applied to the front part of the shell. |

destiny2
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:32:00 -
[94] - Quote
awww destroyers CCP you shouldnt make vids such as this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRyXDlZKwgA
I was looking foreward to fireing my dread at a planet and listening to the echo's of screams from the planet  |

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
576
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:38:00 -
[95] - Quote
DUST is in its very first stages of integration, and is not even released in full yet. I'd imagine that destroyers were chosen as the first vessel for bombardment because small ship sized guns would be the easiest to balance from a DUST point of view...A single thrasher will be firing a volley of 280mm artillery shells, remember. Stuff like battleships and dreads would do enough damage to wipe out huge portions of a DUST battlefield and thus while it would be cool to have, would need to be carefully balanced.
The concerns raised about a destroyer just leaving at the first sign of trouble are valid. Hopefully there's some sort of mechanic (perhaps a mini siege mode?) that forces pilots bombarding planets to be vulnerable. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6903
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:41:00 -
[96] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:Debora Tsung wrote:Keno Skir wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:You may want to read up on EVE's lore. The 425mm shells fired by Gallente Hybrid weapons do contain anti-matter (most likely suspended as it is in real life in a magnetic bottle) and are fired at a considerable percentage of the speed of light. Then why according to EvE lore do they magically cease to be at 30 or 40km? As i have repeatedly said, i'm aware EvE doesn't (and shouldn't) simulate real physics. But the scenario in question doesn't even fit with EvE's version of physics and that's where i feel there is a break in imersion happening. Also the gameplay element but i'm happy to wait n see how that unfolds. I suspect the magnetic bottle runs out of energy to susain it's containment field, in which case the shell would just evaporate. I'd do it the same way, it's a nice safety mechanism to prevent stray shots hitting anything You dont want to hit, outside of a certain range ofc. Now that seems like a perfectly acceptable reason to me. For other shells, perhaps a simple explosive charge to facilitate the same dignified and safe "end" to a shells existence should it fail to strike its target. Poor shells  They either explode on impact, or they just explode  Not much of a life really.
The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
When you burn with the force of atomic destruction, you don't burn for very long. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |

Thomas Gore
Black Dawn Rising
192
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:41:00 -
[97] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:DUST is in its very first stages of integration, and is not even released in full yet. I'd imagine that destroyers were chosen as the first vessel for bombardment because small ship sized guns would be the easiest to balance from a DUST point of view...A single thrasher will be firing a volley of 280mm artillery shells, remember. Stuff like battleships and dreads would do enough damage to wipe out huge portions of a DUST battlefield and thus while it would be cool to have, would need to be carefully balanced.
The concerns raised about a destroyer just leaving at the first sign of trouble are valid. Hopefully there's some sort of mechanic (perhaps a mini siege mode?) that forces pilots bombarding planets to be vulnerable.
Considering the destroyer will need to wait at the orbit for the beacon signal before it can fire, it will still require quite a bit of coordination between the dust mercs and the capsuleer to be able to just warp in, shoot and warp out.
If you happen to the planet before the orbital strike is fired and the destroyer warps off, the dust bunnies will be pretty disappointed already when their mighty hand of god suddenly chickened out. Mission accomplished? |

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
576
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:44:00 -
[98] - Quote
Thomas Gore wrote:Kahega Amielden wrote:DUST is in its very first stages of integration, and is not even released in full yet. I'd imagine that destroyers were chosen as the first vessel for bombardment because small ship sized guns would be the easiest to balance from a DUST point of view...A single thrasher will be firing a volley of 280mm artillery shells, remember. Stuff like battleships and dreads would do enough damage to wipe out huge portions of a DUST battlefield and thus while it would be cool to have, would need to be carefully balanced.
The concerns raised about a destroyer just leaving at the first sign of trouble are valid. Hopefully there's some sort of mechanic (perhaps a mini siege mode?) that forces pilots bombarding planets to be vulnerable. Considering the destroyer will need to wait at the orbit for the beacon signal before it can fire, it will still require quite a bit of coordination between the dust mercs and the capsuleer to be able to just warp in, shoot and warp out. If you happen to the planet before the orbital strike is fired and the destroyer warps off, the dust bunnies will be pretty disappointed already when their mighty hand of god suddenly chickened out. Mission accomplished?
Well that works. I was unfamiliar with the specific mechanics.
Welp, I fail to see the problem here. |

Merouk Baas
403
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:52:00 -
[99] - Quote
Are you guys really arguing the physics and lore behind destroyer small guns hitting at orbital distances?
Because, seriously, DUST is in BETA, and they picked destroyers as one of the easier ships to get into, to test this stuff out. Like it or not, we're also beta-testing, get used to it as they will mess with the market, mess with your ISKs, mess with the UI, and mess with the rest of the game for no reason other than to beta-test the interface to the DUST systems.
Requiring only dreads to be able to bombard planets locks away the feature behind, what, a year of training? and limits it to lowsec and nullsec. NOT something that's desirable during a beta.
Doesn't mean it won't be like that come release. CCP can pull a bait-and-switch; they've done it in the past. |

Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
527
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:54:00 -
[100] - Quote
The phrase "this itteration" was repeated several times throughtout the devblog.
people need to train Reading Comprehension L1. or go back to school, either would work. |
|

Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
581
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:54:00 -
[101] - Quote
An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.
optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.
Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.
So, small guns can hit any arbitarily distant target provided that target's motion is known with sufficient precision. The same goes for medium, large and XL guns. The only difference is how big of a kaboom you get.
Small guns = still a pretty bloody big kaboom. medium guns = OMGWTFsplosion Large guns = rocks fall, everybody dies XL guns = the only way to be sure.
The feature shall be iterated upon as the game progresses. DUST is still in its infancy. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
|

ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3922

|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:02:00 -
[102] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.
optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.
Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.
This would only hold completely true if EVE were based on standard space physics. The problem there is, it isn't. EVE space is based on fluid dynamics (to a degree at least), hence our ships coming to rest when the engines are shut off, and why we do not continue to accelerate if we leave our engines switched on. ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

March rabbit
Aliastra
473
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:03:00 -
[103] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:It may be worth remembering just how big and powerful the shells are that we use in EVE when compared to standard ground based weaponry. Gallente destroyers with rails will usually fire 125mm shells, slightly smaller than the 130mm shells fired by modern naval destroyers.
We know how much damage that kind of real life shell can cause, now imagine those shells being filled with anti-matter! And now imagine a shell half a metre across made of the same stuff travelling a good percentage the speed of light, the kind fired from a 425mm battleship railgun. The kinetic damage alone would vaporise a large portion of the area. Add in the anti--matter and you wouldn't just kill a few DUST soldiers, you would vaporise a few square kilometres. How do you explain the huge difference in effective range? 20km in space, 300km when shooting a planet? gravitation and stuff?  |

Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
583
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:15:00 -
[104] - Quote
In-character/out-of-character separation, mate. It's pretty easy to get your head around: Just because the ships move that way doesn't mean the ammo does. The laws of physics still apply in the EVE universe, they just may not be accurately represented on our screens because gameplay comes first, realism second.
(btw, the lore explaining the "fluid space" thing is that warp fields produce "drag" and have to remain permanently online because if they lose power they implode and annihilate any matter caught inside them, hence why your ships suffer critical existence failures - your last structure HP represents the moment when your ship can no longer provide power to the warp engine and the field collapses)
Where realism actually produces cool stuff, it sticks around. In this case, reality is pretty frakking badass because it means that if you throw something off into space at speed, the odds are that it will eventually hit something.
Realism doesn't stick around for ship motion otherwise our fights would involve razzing around at 90% of lightspeed, several hundred AUs apart. Each fight would take seven years, time-dilated down to an apparent seven weeks due to relativistic effects, and would consist of launching some missiles and lasers, taking evasive action, then waiting for seven weeks to see which ship, if any, explodes, rinse and repeat until one of you makes a fatal mistake. That would not be much fun as a game, so realism is neglected in favour of gameplay. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
330
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:18:00 -
[105] - Quote
Fleur Kendall wrote:Source is CCP Nullabor from this Dev BlogUnder " The Tools of War" subheading he says "We are also enabling the ultimate in cross game escapades, Orbital Bombardment, with the first flavor being the Tactical Strike...you can load up these special long range, high precision munitions into suitable small turret weapons and rain fire from the skies...more guns are just better, so I recommend the destroyer hull...for this particular task"
Obviously this doesn't mean that it is limited to being fitted to only small ships, but I wait to see how the mechanics pan out I guess... Destroyers are a long-held traditional close-support vessel IRL. You only bring in the big guys when you *really* want to do some landscaping. If you want what you're assaulting to still be more-or-less intact, you use the small guys. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Coreola
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:41:00 -
[106] - Quote
Yea, my thoughts on this would be why should I risk my 300mil battleship for something I can accomplish more safely in a 4mil destroyer?
Guess it just depends on the payouts. Can't imagine people on Dust will be dropping millions on orbital strikes every match, but who knows. Jump, jump, jump. |

Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1093
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:53:00 -
[107] - Quote
Oki Riverson wrote:Thomas Gore wrote:Why would a battleship waste time firing into a 24 man skirmish?
DUST is not Planetside 2, the scale is tiny. Not the point ... Why can't my Coercer hit you from 10,000km away in Eve. It's also fairly risk free to said destroyer pilot. fit stabs and align :(
Risk free to be sitting in a frigate or dessie in a FW warzone.
Yeah...  "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |

iskflakes
Magnets Inc.
260
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:01:00 -
[108] - Quote
Stitcher wrote: optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.
Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.
So why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range? Why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)? Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others?
Nothing about EVE weapons is realistic. Track your wealth with EVEStats - https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php |

Abu Tarynnia
Abu Tarynnia Corporation
74
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:43:00 -
[109] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:Stitcher wrote: optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.
Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.
So why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range? Why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)? Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others? Nothing about EVE weapons is realistic.
Play World of tanks if you want something 'realistic' :) YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!! |

Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
585
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:13:00 -
[110] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:So why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)?
damage is partly a function of where the round hits. Precise shots that hit weak spots do more damage. Shots that hit an armour plate at a flat angle glance off. From further away, it's more difficult to aim a round wit the precision to hit those weak spots to do the most harm (represented in-game by a penalty on your attack result roll).
Quote:Why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range? Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others?
Because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY. 
as I said above, whenever there's a conflict between realism and gameplay, gameplay wins. What we see on our screens is the "gameplay-ized" version of what's happening, rather than what would be happening if that scenario played out realistically. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
|

Veronica Kerrigan
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:13:00 -
[111] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:I do find it funny that in space small guns can't hit a stationary target 20km away, but somehow they can hit a target 300km away on the surface of a planet with accuracy on the order of a few meters.
This choice has been made for the benefit of DUST players, who will want to try out EVE and be shelling a planet within a few minutes.
If battleships are ever allowed to fire at planets it will only be 1.2x as good as a destroyer.
Shooting down is easy enough. Rail and artillery shells would have very little trouble finding their target. Once you account for how the planet is moving, you can guide the shell in no problem. A couple of fins can direct the weapon to wherever it needs to go, and keeps accelerating by gravity. In space we have no such ability to guide our projectiles in, meaning we have less effective range. |

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1240
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:15:00 -
[112] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:Stitcher wrote:An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.
optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.
Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's. This would only hold completely true if EVE were based on standard space physics. The problem there is, it isn't. EVE space is based on fluid dynamics (to a degree at least), hence our ships coming to rest when the engines are shut off, and why we do not continue to accelerate if we leave our engines switched on.
See??? It's a SUBMARINE game!! You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1240
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:18:00 -
[113] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:Debora Tsung wrote:Keno Skir wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:You may want to read up on EVE's lore. The 425mm shells fired by Gallente Hybrid weapons do contain anti-matter (most likely suspended as it is in real life in a magnetic bottle) and are fired at a considerable percentage of the speed of light. Then why according to EvE lore do they magically cease to be at 30 or 40km? As i have repeatedly said, i'm aware EvE doesn't (and shouldn't) simulate real physics. But the scenario in question doesn't even fit with EvE's version of physics and that's where i feel there is a break in imersion happening. Also the gameplay element but i'm happy to wait n see how that unfolds. I suspect the magnetic bottle runs out of energy to susain it's containment field, in which case the shell would just evaporate. I'd do it the same way, it's a nice safety mechanism to prevent stray shots hitting anything You dont want to hit, outside of a certain range ofc. Now that seems like a perfectly acceptable reason to me. For other shells, perhaps a simple explosive charge to facilitate the same dignified and safe "end" to a shells existence should it fail to strike its target. Poor shells  They either explode on impact, or they just explode  Not much of a life really.
That's what happens to modern real-life shells and missiles - modern ordnance is rigged with proximity and timed fuses to ensure, in case of a miss, the closest possible detonation, or otherwise, to deny the recovery of advanced munitions by the enemy. Air-to-air missiles are a perfect example of this - if a fighter pilot manages to evade one, and the missile detects that it's trajectory has suddenly changed from moving closer to the target to moving further away, it will explode for the chance that shrapnel will damage the intended target. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1240
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:21:00 -
[114] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:It may be worth remembering just how big and powerful the shells are that we use in EVE when compared to standard ground based weaponry. Gallente destroyers with rails will usually fire 125mm shells, slightly smaller than the 130mm shells fired by modern naval destroyers.
We know how much damage that kind of real life shell can cause, now imagine those shells being filled with anti-matter! And now imagine a shell half a metre across made of the same stuff travelling a good percentage the speed of light, the kind fired from a 425mm battleship railgun. The kinetic damage alone would vaporise a large portion of the area. Add in the anti--matter and you wouldn't just kill a few DUST soldiers, you would vaporise a few square kilometres.
So.... why doesn't it? I mean, when a round strikes the ground, why are there buildings still standing? I don't suppose they're made of some uber-resistant material (unobtanium, for example) that is available in sufficient quantities to make indestructible buildings. And if so... where is this material so I may construct my starships from it? You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
332
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:
So why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range?
Ever hear of divergance? Even a tiny fraction of a % of error becomes large, as range increases. 1 minute of angle at 100 yards is a one inch error. At 100,000 yards it's a thousand inches. At a million yards... I'm sure you get the picture.
Quote:Why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)? See divergence, above, and also: what Stitcher said.
Quote:Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others? See divergence, and also - Space is BIG. Your shot is small. Ships are moving at very large relative velocities - if you're not tracking it specifically, your chance of hitting it is *very* small. IRL: If you're gunning for ducks, and you miss your shot, does another duck fall? Nope. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
332
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:24:00 -
[116] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote: See??? It's a SUBMARINE game!!
Which is why I love it so. 
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:25:00 -
[117] - Quote
They're obviously trying it out with small guns / ammo first to make sure the cross game mechanics are working, before rolling out the Just Nuke the Site From Orbit; It's the Only Way to Be Sure version. One might even speculate that at some point the small munitions will be removed or neutered and this will be transitioned to a large / extra-large weapon only feature, which would make somewhat more sense. If something like that does happen, maybe those small tac munitions will become a nice little collector curiosity some day. |

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1242
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:28:00 -
[118] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote: See??? It's a SUBMARINE game!!
Which is why I love it so. 
And also why flying a Venture gives all new meaning to the song, We All Live in a Yellow Submarine
EDIT: I'm pretty sure that ship was coloured so as a joke by the devs in reference to the whole "EVE is submarines" meme. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
333
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:29:00 -
[119] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:One might even speculate that at some point the small munitions will be removed or neutered and this will be transitioned to a large / extra-large weapon only feature, which would make somewhat more sense. If something like that does happen, maybe those small tac munitions will become a nice little collector curiosity some day. Nah.
Even when there were big-gun cruisers and battleships for Naval Gunfire Support, the lowly Destroyer had its place.
When you want something small hit precisely, or want to blow something up in close proximity to friendly crunchies, the Destroyer is your go-to platform. When you want to do large-scale urban renewal or industrial landscaping, the Battleship is your friend. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Abu Tarynnia
Abu Tarynnia Corporation
75
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:30:00 -
[120] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:
See??? It's a SUBMARINE game!!
*cackle* !!!!  YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |