Link? Source?

Link? Source?

Patch notes. Read them.

Any old Joe Blow in a dime a dozen destroyer shelling a planet and zipping off at the first sign of trouble

Why would a battleship waste time firing into a 24 man skirmish?

DUST is not Planetside 2, the scale is tiny.

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 :(

Just read that orbital strikes will be fired from small guns.. Does this seem like a break from "eve reality" to anyone else?

Guesse since they used an Abaddon for the Fanfest demo i just assumed you would need large guns to fire them, if not some sort of special module that takes buku CPU or something. That said i actually still feel like a destroyer raining death from hundreds of kilometers up is a bit far fetched.

Not tryin to get it changed or anything, just noticed it today and didn't sit right. I'm imagining clouds of thrashers or even atrons, hell even industrials firing highly destructive weapons a really really long way... not how i'd have done it anyway o/

[quote=Keno Skir]well if we used Abaddon and fired lasers from orbit , the atmosphere would negates most of the EM .

Bunnies can also blow up said destroyer.

I have every confidence CCP will - sort things out.

Just read that orbital strikes will be fired from small guns.. Does this seem like a break from "eve reality" to anyone else?

Guesse since they used an Abaddon for the Fanfest demo i just assumed you would need large guns to fire them, if not some sort of special module that takes buku CPU or something. That said i actually still feel like a destroyer raining death from hundreds of kilometers up is a bit far fetched.

Not tryin to get it changed or anything, just noticed it today and didn't sit right. I'm imagining clouds of thrashers or even atrons, hell even industrials firing highly destructive weapons a really really long way... not how i'd have done it anyway o/

My argument is from a gameplay perspective primarily, but additionally the massive range of the shells is far out of the realms of what i assumed to be small turret capability and small ship capability.

If the 24 man skirmish is for somewhere important the skirmish is more than the numbers involved. Thought that was the difference between DUST and call of duty, meaning to the conflict.

When i think "Orbital Bombardment" i think of mealstroms, not atrons.

"your main battle tank recieved 100,000 Damage from Keno Skirs Iteron 1 and was vapourized..."

U new round here? :D

Let's not be hasty, here. Don't forget, DUST is still in beta - by limiting OB to small turrets, they are limiting the load on their servers

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.

How did you get to the conclusion that making the required ship mega cheap and disposable will limit the stress on the server? Won't 4 times as many people be doing it? Does a battleship not take up the same server power as a destroyer? How about 10 destroyers?



EDIT : oh u mean defence fleets?

I was actually thinking of the extra code required to implement more ammo types, not so much the server load - I've been drinking. More code just to make the beta more like the final? Probably not necessary. A beta is like a "demo" - it's not the full version.

Now the scales are smaller and destroyers fit just well. When dust goes to null there will be larger battlefields and there will be a need for larger guns too.

And also DUST guys that are starting EVE account to support their Dust corps will have easier time to do it with destroyers. Imagine having to skill 1 year to be able to sit properly in a dread to so they can shoot on planets.

Orbital Strikes should go off from Dreads in Siege. Everything else is just so stupid. How could anyone care if a destroyer warps through lowsec bombing planets. There should actually be a risk involved in getting a big advantage (what a OB should be).

Orbital Strikes that annihilate a decent radius on the planet from Dreads in siege, that would be badass.

Im a little afraid that more bad things will happen to my beloved eve to make things easier for Dust players. Can't they just HTFU like we always have to :D

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.

I assume they'll probably add larger tactical ammo types in the future which will hit a lot harder than the small. The small stuff probably doesn't hit all that hard. I hope the large ammo is actually sort of weak, and that to pack a REAL punch, you need XL.

In before someone says "Gravity"

So orbital strikes are just weak cause if they are actually turning the tides of a battle then a destroyer would just be stupid.

I mean, its a freaking ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT from a SPACECRAFT with HUGE WEAPONS and its gonna be like "oh damn that orbital bomberdment took me 10% of my HP" or what?

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.

EVE has no gravity. It doesn't even have inertia. If you shoot something that's out of falloff range your shell just vanishes, rather than continuing at its current velocity until it hits something.

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.

Orbital Strikes should go off from Dreads in Siege. Everything else is just so stupid

The shell yould just vaporise in the atmosphere (maybe with a big bang) but nothing more. The sheer amount of energy the shell would have to travel with a 'good percentage the speed of light' would tear the fabric of given shell apart ... as for antimatter ... the shell it self would implede the moment the antimatter is inserted !

If eve followed real physics those shells would go for 1000km (well actually much much much much much further) in space but they don't. I wast saying real 125mm shells couldnt do it, i'm saying the ones in eve shouldnt be able to. Because in eve space the same size shells go to around 20-30km, unless they are shooting something on the ground, then magically they have a 1000km optimal.. Wheres my atron with a 1000km optimal please?

I get the size difference of spaceships compared to men. It still makes no sense when placed into EvE.

I'm not saying the games to hard or easy or that i want it harder or easier. I'm saying that having such a massive performance boost on a small gun just because its facing down is a MASSIVE imersion breaker that doesn't "fit" with the rest of the game at all.

As far as orbital bombartment goes .. anyone remember 'Babylon 5' ? I think it was third or forth season .. they flung asteroids on planets ... maybe this would be some new reason to fit tractor beams on capitals ? :) .. And for planetary defense to have enough miners at hand to remove belts before the enemy arives

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. It may also be worth noting that the ammunition available to use for orbital strikes is not the same as standard ammunition, it has been created specifically for this task.

I can't see any reason to risk 200-2000 millions worth battleship for a planet which can bring 50mil/month of "income" - or for ridiculous 12x12 surface battle with 5mil payout (5mil = my guess about Dust payouts).

About size. EVE destroyers are comparable to modern naval carriers and WW2 battleships. I.e. they are huge.

If they bring a rule / notification out, cannot warp into close orbit due to risk of gravitational disturbances for larger ships then the destroyer and below thing will work. Large guns only have a range of like 100k anyways..

So whats the problem?

EDIT: come to think of it, how is a destroyer going to shoot a planet whens its range is 20k...

Did you miss the fact that older players are having their advantages over new players nerfed?

The fact that you spend months or years training skills to high levels is now irrelevant.

T1 frigates are as good as T2. T1 cruiser logi is 90% as good as T2 at 1/100th the cost. 15 drakes are now as good as a supercarrier at 1/20th the cost and a fraction of the skillpoints.

CCP will keep doing this as long as they think loyal veteran players are preventing new subscriptions.

I can't see any reason to risk 200-2000 millions worth battleship for a planet which can bring 50mil/month of "income" - or for ridiculous 12x12 surface battle with 5mil payout (5mil = my guess about Dust payouts).

About size. EVE destroyers are comparable to modern naval carriers and WW2 battleships. I.e. they are huge.

P.S. Asteroids bombardment = "mass driving" is too destructive.

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.

I quite like the idea that this will start off with small ships. Admittedly I am a little disappointed that missiles have yet to be included, as I think the new Corax would look amazing raining down missiles from orbit.

Ahm .. YOU brought the RL-Destroyers shell into discussion .. and in RL anything filled up with antimatter would just implde AND a shell (short of 1KM diameter) will just vaporice because of the air around us .. otherwise you wouldn't be able to go around on the surface due to tiny asteroids and space-trash hitting earth all time.
And yes story ... and I still don't understand why my stealth-BOMBER cannot use its BOMBS for orbital BOMBartment ... though I have the skill BOMB deployment .. but that might be something completely different

Given tens of millennia of scientific progress, the weapons seen in EVE are not as far fetched as they may seem.

QUOTING THE DEV BLOG - These come with the risk of losing a collateral payment of ISK, but a victory will secure a district on one of the many temperate planets in Faction Warfare space.

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.

Does one gram of antimatter contain the energy of a 20 kilotonne nuclear bomb?

Twenty kilotonnes of TNT is the equivalent of the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. The explosion of a kilotonne (=1000 tonnes) of TNT corresponds to a energy release of 4.2x1012 joules (1012 is a 1 followed by 12 zeros, i.e. a million million). For comparison, a 60 watt light bulb consumes 60 J per second.

You are probably asking for the explosive release of energy by the sudden annihilation of one gram of antimatter with one gram of matter. Let's calculate it.

To calculate the energy released in the annihilation of 1 g of antimatter with 1 g of matter (which makes 2 g = 0.002 kg), we have to use the formula E=mc2, where c is the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s):

E= 0.002 x (300,000,000)2 kg m2/s2 = 1.8 x 1014 J = 180 x 1012 J. Since 4.2x1012 J corresponds to a kilotonne of TNT, then 2 g of matter-antimatter annihilation correspond to 180/4.2 = 42.8 kilotonnes, about double the 20 kt of TNT.

This means that you GÇÿonlyGÇÖ need half a gram of antimatter to be equally destructive as the Hiroshima bomb, since the other half gram of (normal) matter is easy enough to find.

At CERN we make quantities of the order of 107 antiprotons per second and there are 6x1023 of them in a single gram of antihydrogen. You can easily calculate how long it would take to get one gram: we would need 6x1023/107=6x1016 seconds. There are only 365 (days) x 24 (h) x 60 (min) x 60 (sec) = around 3x107 seconds in a year, so it would take roughly 6x1016 / 3x107 = 2x109 = two billion years! It is quite unlikely that anyone wants to wait that long.

how does scientific progress prevent the entire battlefield from being vaporated when treated to the equivalent of 1 gigaton TNT?

Like everything else in the game, "OB" will go through various iterations.

If you were expecting vast mushroom clouds and entire cities disappearing, well, how nice for you.

That only happens in the movies..... and Nevada.

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) ...

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.

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.

[quote=Lipbite] I can understand why CCP want to scale this from the bottom up - because that's the only sensible way you can balance it. Anything else, and you'd kill off the new population base of dust before it established.

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.

I will camp planets in my anti-destroyer moros. Until this changes.

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 ???

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.

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?

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.

How do you explain the huge difference in effective range? 20km in space, 300km when shooting a planet?

Source is CCP Nullabor from this Dev Blog

Under "The Tools of War" subheading he says



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...

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 :(

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.

So why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

See??? It's a SUBMARINE game!!

Which is why I love it so.

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.

See??? It's a SUBMARINE game!!

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.

T1 frigates are as good as T2. T1 cruiser logi is 90% as good as T2 at 1/100th the cost. 15 drakes are now as good as a supercarrier at 1/20th the cost and a fraction of the skillpoints. CCP will keep doing this as long as they think loyal veteran players are preventing new subscriptions.

CCP is trying to debunk the "You can't compete with people who started at launch" myth that probably blocks more subs than anything that actually happens in-game. Also, T2 and supercaps were meant to fill niche rolls, not be I-Win buttons.

Also take note, they aren't trying to destroy the facilities they fight over, these places are very valuable. They want to keep them around. So huge weaponry is a Terrible idea.

Yes, destroyers for orbital bombardment. Why do you ask? Because we want to be able to build up to bigger and better. If we started with Titans doing orbital bombardment and then added the others going down each time we added something it would be smaller.

This way we start with destroyers with small guns and next time we add bigger guns we can make it bigger and better.

Keep in mind our goal is to start with a small connection between the two games and build it up from that so we don't break anything, or break as little as possible.

Hope that helps answer why we went with destroyers first. :)

Make the thing work good first, then go bigger. Not that hard to figure out.

That said it would be awesome to fire 8 bus-sized projectiles into a planet

Also take note, they aren't trying to destroy the facilities they fight over, these places are very valuable. They want to keep them around. So huge weaponry is a Terrible idea.

My argument is from a gameplay perspective primarily, but additionally the massive range of the shells is far out of the realms of what i assumed to be small turret capability and small ship capability.

If the 24 man skirmish is for somewhere important the skirmish is more than the numbers involved. Thought that was the difference between DUST and call of duty, meaning to the conflict.

When i think "Orbital Bombardment" i think of mealstroms, not atrons.

"your main battle tank recieved 100,000 Damage from Keno Skirs Iteron 1 and was vapourized..."

Exactly. Use giant weapons and there won't be anything left worth fighting over.

So, getting a titan to do a bombardment would be like the nuke in CoD2?

It should be. Ends the ******* match, no salvage.

Also, consider how wide the barrel is on 1400mm howitzers. That is 14 meters!

1400 mm is 1.4 meters. You won't be able to stand up inside it.

1400 mm is 1.4 meters. You won't be able to stand up inside it.

1400 mm is 1.4 meters. You won't be able to stand up inside it.

1400 mm is 1.4 meters. You won't be able to stand up inside it.

Yes, destroyers for orbital bombardment. Why do you ask? Because we want to be able to build up to bigger and better. If we started with Titans doing orbital bombardment and then added the others going down each time we added something it would be smaller.

This way we start with destroyers with small guns and next time we add bigger guns we can make it bigger and better.

Keep in mind our goal is to start with a small connection between the two games and build it up from that so we don't break anything, or break as little as possible.

Hope that helps answer why we went with destroyers first. :)

So a small gun that usually has the effective range of 7000m, can now fire almost 2,000,000m?

How do you explain the huge difference in effective range? 20km in space, 300km when shooting a planet?

Shell gets caught in the planet's gravity well. Hits the atmosphere, gravity does the rest. Something like that is what they'll go with, I assume.

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.

Still, I do understand how small guns could be used this way, but wouldn't it be more fun if you could hover in the skies in a squad of Rifters and pound the ground with arty and missiles while someone else's fighter squadron defended your ships from anti-aircraft defences and ground-launched fighters, or just assisted with the bombing? Or, if you had your frigs and fighters in the sky while the other side had their frigs and fighters in the sky simultaneously.... imagine what the light show would look like from the ground? Trails of missiles and high-velocity rounds streaking back and forth while fighters and bombers deployed by carriers in orbit swarmed the scene, as chunks of hull plating and other debris rained from the sky to fall on the battlefield below, adding an additional potential hazard to DUST troops?

Just read that orbital strikes will be fired from small guns.. Does this seem like a break from "eve reality" to anyone else?

Guesse since they used an Abaddon for the Fanfest demo i just assumed you would need large guns to fire them, if not some sort of special module that takes buku CPU or something. That said i actually still feel like a destroyer raining death from hundreds of kilometers up is a bit far fetched.

Not tryin to get it changed or anything, just noticed it today and didn't sit right. I'm imagining clouds of thrashers or even atrons, hell even industrials firing highly destructive weapons a really really long way... not how i'd have done it anyway o/

As black powder weapons are arguably the least advanced, I'll use the Thrasher to explain this.

A Thrasher can be fit with either 250mm or 280mm rounds, these rounds are far more advanced then anything you've experienced in your lives. At a range of approximately 40km and still be within optimal range. These bullets are at least a foot wide we don't know their length or contents but it's 18,000 years more advanced and full of technology developed for conflict in space. It's cheap to fit, efficient and fast but can die relatively quickly. Absolutely perfect for the role of bombarding a target with high explosives..

People certainly take their space physics very seriously...

People certainly take their space physics very seriously...

But the only question is Why do you want to start Small ...

You should have begin At least with BS for Orbital strike .. dread should be the standard..

You doing it Wrong CCP and you Know it stop telling B....

And if it physics you want to explain the fact : Shoot Small ammo in universe with heat and force in the atmosphere planet you bullet disapear ... becaus it was too small.

An XL bullet .. could at least with a little imagination become a Small bullet when hitting the ground .....

Don't get it?

I can think of one underlying reason that probably tops all others to start small instead of starting big.

Starting big excludes a lot of players who have yet to skill for big. Starting small allows all players, including trial accounts, to participate. Excluding players from game features is a good way to lose players and subscribers. Including everyone is a good way of encouraging more subscribers, and maintaining current ones. Let's not forget that, at the end of the day, CCP are a business - as well as doing this for ALL their fans and customers, they still have a bottom line to consider. No bottom line = no CCP = no EVE = everybody loses.

Its mostly because CCP has seemed to stop caring about making things actually go together with the Eve universe. The idea for allowing Destroyers to be used for Orbital Bombardment seems to be a cop-out. They seem to want to have a low entry bar for it, either because they know they won't be able to get older players to do it(after the first 3 months) or because they want dust players to sub and be able to do it quickly. I mean how could you go from a Moros bombarding a planet to a Catalyst.

In the end, everything regarding the integration with Dust seems to be half assed and not thought through very well. Seemingly out of desperation. Guess that's what happens when you bomb a built up major release(Incarna) then have major uncertainty with your first non Eve release, which has been indev probably longer then it will be active.


Edit: Also yes I'm bitter, if you didn't get the memo.

So with that mentality trial players should be able to fly titans. What you are asking for is instant gratification. You believe that everyone at anytime should be able to do everything. That isn't Eve.

Eve ship classes aren't modeled after RL ship classes. You are trying to compare navel vessels to internet spaceships, the idea isn't the same.

Yes, destroyers for orbital bombardment. Why do you ask? Because we want to be able to build up to bigger and better. If we started with Titans doing orbital bombardment and then added the others going down each time we added something it would be smaller.

This way we start with destroyers with small guns and next time we add bigger guns we can make it bigger and better.

Keep in mind our goal is to start with a small connection between the two games and build it up from that so we don't break anything, or break as little as possible.

Hope that helps answer why we went with destroyers first. :)

This iteration of Orbital Bombardment is focused on the Tactical Strike variant which is performed with specialized ammo for small turret based weapons. Each turret category has a specialized ammo type: - Hybrids: Tactical Hybrid S - Lasers: Tactical Laser S - Projectiles: Tactical EMP S

The hybrid strike delivers a nice spread of high-damage rounds that are effective against infantry and vehicles. Laser strikes have a more focused area and are good for taking out installations or heavy vehicles. The EMP strike does a massive amount of damage to shields in a large area, but it will not damage armor, so it's good against heavily shield tanked targets.

Just read that orbital strikes will be fired from small guns.. Does this seem like a break from "eve reality" to anyone else?

Guesse since they used an Abaddon for the Fanfest demo i just assumed you would need large guns to fire them, if not some sort of special module that takes buku CPU or something. That said i actually still feel like a destroyer raining death from hundreds of kilometers up is a bit far fetched.

Not tryin to get it changed or anything, just noticed it today and didn't sit right. I'm imagining clouds of thrashers or even atrons, hell even industrials firing highly destructive weapons a really really long way... not how i'd have done it anyway o/

Technically, all it takes is an orbital platform, (i.e: satellite with this intended purpose). Beware, they are floating up there, over your head, as we speak.

Referencing Prisonplanet or Infowars for anything is like using a placemat map from McDonalds for directions instead of a GPS or a refadex.

I navigate by landmarks and paper maps. I break out an old lensatic compass if I need orientation.
(Actual truth. I don't get lost.)

Actually: I just grabbed the first link that had images. Prisonplanet was the luck winner today.

You mean like BF3 with spaceships? And that is the problem. By the time Dust reaches its nadir it will be outstripped by other FPS that do everything better. I envision Dust will eventually be the playground of EvE players and their corps that see profit in participating in both at once.

The image is either broken there or there isn't one. Alternatively, this post on another forum entirely has a legitimate image of the Project Thor concept.

The problem with implementing space militarisation, though, is that once you put a weapon like this up there, everyone else is going to want to even the playing field, which means more expenditures on defence systems to maintain the system as a legitimate platform.

Same image source - Though the Prinsonplanet linked one is better resolution. Dunno why can't see it.


Welcome to EVE.

I welcome something like this in EVE. Weapons platforms like this deployed to protect their sov planets from DUST assault? Bring it on

The more I think about OWPs, the more I'm geeking on the concept...

Sov and planetary control rules to enable the emplacement of different size OWPs...
OWP fuel and ammo re-load runs past hostile fleets....
Sieging each other's OWPs, maybe even a mechanism for capturing them?

Oh, I've only just touched on the possibilities, but I SO want to SEE this HAPPEN!

Didn't you say, not that long ago, that there'd be new ships with bonuses to the orbital bombardment?

The real question is why there is no way to grief. Dust does not deserve to be a part of eve if there is no griefing.

Wouldn't ground-based defences (big-ass weapons seen in trailers) just eliminate orbital platforms?

Wouldn't ground-based defences (big-ass weapons seen in trailers) just eliminate orbital platforms?

I like the carrier-based air support idea, though. A carrier can launch support craft such as bombers (which can be destroyed by AA equipped tanks), or can deliver additional clones via orbital dropship. Both ideas would be subject to a delay while ships deploy to the surface, but air strikes would have to be able to do something that bombardment cannot - such as dusties being able to control the craft we launch (drone uplink?) or being able to specify a strafing run after being called down from orbit.

The real question is why there is no way to grief. Dust does not deserve to be a part of eve if there is no griefing.

Because the console FPS players are a fickle lot and Dust will die a quick death if griefing is a major part of the game.

Came to this thread to devour the whiners and nitpickers with logic and science, but ten pages later,I see that everyone else already did a fabulous job. So now I have nothing to do.

Well, maybe point out my own (very narrow) disappointment regarding orbital bombardment with Dessies. In the novel Templar One (yeah, I read it) the story foreshadowed two forms of orbital bombardment - dreads and dessies. I'm sure the dreads will come later, but in the books, dessie bombardment came from what amounted to strafing runs. I think it's perfectly in keeping with lore and logic for dessies to bomb from orbit, but strafing runs would have just been soooooooooo much coooooooooler.

Imagine an A-10 Warthog, x9000