Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
D3vastator
|
Posted - 2004.04.30 15:22:00 -
[1]
Edited by: D3vastator on 30/04/2004 15:31:55 Problem I Encountered Yesterday I had a rather unfortunate event occur. I was mining in my Moa in 0.7 space. Some Rats spawned & I fired a Havoc Heavy Missile @ the worst of the buch to soften it for my scout drones to chew on. My missile directly impacted a vacant shuttle that was about 1/2-way between the Rat & I. Some guy had left the shuttle layin' in the belt after realizing he still had it in his Indy. Needless to say, CONCORD showed up & Blew the SHtuffing out of my Moa.
My Question: Why, in the relative emptiness of space, is a highly advanced & costly weapon like a missile, dumber than a current-day American Cruise Missile?
What happened to me was like watching a guy drive across an empty parking lot & run directly into a little girl playing hopscotch in the middle of it. A missile simply should not do this.
What I Propose: Fix missiles so that they only Impact Asteroids or Your Target. This will have no ill effects in the game. Splash damage can still occur, so Missiles won't be widely used in clusters of ppl. They will still hit asteroids, something I hate as a Moa Miner, but a relavent part of the game (you can hide from a Caracal in a thick Asteroid Field). But, it will add more realism to the game, as the missiles should be intelligent enough to avoid hitting a little girl in the middle of an empty parking lot.
The Argument: Some will say, "you shouldn't use missiles when you mine cuz that very thing may happen". But I say, how am I supposed to defend myself from Sansha's Enslavers (12,500isk Rats that use Missiles) that spawn in 0.7 space, without using missiles in a Moa. A Moa can Equip 4 Turrets (read: Miner IIs), 2 Missile Launchers, & Carry 250m¦ of Drones. Heck, as I type this, I've just lost a Scout Drone to 2 4k rats that spawned. I thought the Moa was great Because it is able to defend itself so well while still mining with 4 lasers. That is why I bought it. I never imagined losing a 7,500,000 ISK ship to CONCORD without locking another player. I'm still a Carebear, I'm a refugee of ENB & a Carebear by nature, but I've also just began the game & can't compete with my 600k of skill points. I really think that CCP should go halfway on this by making it impossible for a missile to directly strike an untargeted ship.
-My $0.03
-This has been another (PLEASE VOTE: Good Idea, Pointless Brainstorm or Brainfart) from D3.
"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you can put off 'til next week?" |
Ryan Hart
|
Posted - 2004.04.30 22:25:00 -
[2]
not a good idea
this will lessen the 'realisticness' of the game
|
Ryan Hart
|
Posted - 2004.04.30 22:25:00 -
[3]
they make it like that on purpose
|
D3vastator
|
Posted - 2004.04.30 22:33:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ryan Hart not a good idea
this will lessen the 'realisticness' of the game
Excuse me Ryan... please expain why a missile in a spacefairing society must be a dumbfire? It is unrealistic for a costly missile to 'dumbly' impact an unintended target. The US military has missiles TODAY that have the required guidance systems to avoid every asteroid in a belt, every non-targeted ship, & every single Rat can out there. Please do not insult your own intelligence by saying a dumbfire missile is realistic in the world of EVE.
-This has been another (PLEASE VOTE: Good Idea, Pointless Brainstorm or Brainfart) from D3.
"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you can put off 'til next week?" |
DeFood
|
Posted - 2004.04.30 22:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ryan Hart not a good idea
this will lessen the 'realisticness' of the game
Sheesh indeed. Just now people will want ships to stop blowing up when they hit a planet because the dumb autopilot didn't bother to steer around it!
|
Sochin
|
Posted - 2004.05.01 00:22:00 -
[6]
Hes got a point. Its ridiculous to think that missiles in the future would be stupider then the ones of today. At least cruise missiles should be able to avoid obsacles.
I think the reason this hasnt been implemented is because of how complicated it would be to code in. The missiles would have to check several times a second to make sure nothing is in its path, and if something is, it would have to check what direction it could safely dodge to, how far off course it would have to go, when its clear, ect. Very difficult to do. I'd rather the DEVS focus on getting Shiva out before trying to implement something like this.
Nemo me impune lacessit
|
D3vastator
|
Posted - 2004.05.01 01:37:00 -
[7]
The Missile wouldn't have to change it's course to accomplish this. It would only have collision detection for the targeted ship & asteroids. It would simply fly through any other object. No, it wouldn't look realistic, but the computations for the visual flight-path changes would be too heavy. It's a RPG, not a FPS. It's not required that everything be 100% visually correct. Keep in mind that we do fly through planets & enter Stargates & bases through random solid areas of thier structures.
-This has been another (PLEASE VOTE: Good Idea, Pointless Brainstorm or Brainfart) from D3.
"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you can put off 'til next week?" |
J'Rela
|
Posted - 2004.05.01 01:51:00 -
[8]
The only problem I see with this idea is that it negates the current tactic of deliberately interposing an escorting ship between firing ship and target.
And, I suppose, if that's what you want to do...
...while we're at it, can we make smartbombs actually smart and not wreck nearby containers or friendlies? ---- If violence never solves anything, you're not using enough.
|
Mark A
|
Posted - 2004.05.01 06:19:00 -
[9]
I don't think its a problem that missiles impact on ships or other objects in their way. What is wrong IMHO is that CONCORD ganked you because of the unintentional missile impact on a non-targeted entity. ____________________________________
|
D3vastator
|
Posted - 2004.05.01 13:11:00 -
[10]
True, that could be another solution to the problem. Perhaps a Security Level reduction as opposed to reducing your ship to a can in a situation like this. I still think the simplest solution would be to turn off collision detection for non-targeted ships though. I seriously doubt that you can effectively place your ship between an agressor & the Indy you are assigned to protect, using the current game mechanics. I can't imagine that 'tactic' being successful enough that it's demise would be noticed by many players.
-This has been another (PLEASE VOTE: Good Idea, Pointless Brainstorm or Brainfart) from D3.
"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you can put off 'til next week?" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |