Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Missiles

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Titans of Steel - Warring Suns >> Missiles Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Missiles - 8/12/2004 3:37:02 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
Thought this should have a thread of its own.

I think its time for some tweaking here.

My suggestion for LRM is to bring down the heat for LRM9 from 17 to 15 and for LRM 12 from 24 to 20. This will be more in line with the other missiles. Now what can we do for the bigger racks without touching weight/slots/ammo ? How about range. SRM8 can get range 10. LRM6 can go down to 22 with 23 for LRM9 and 24 with LRM12 ? GMH sould stay and NM14 can be pushed to 11 ?



Hmm, different ranges for same type of missiles is a little hard to swallow IMO. Though it would make bigger racks slightly more appealing, it goes against common sense.
The key is recycle time IMO. With 2 LRM6s you can deal the same amount of damage than with 1 LRM12, and they'll recycle in ~half the time, effectively doubling your damage/sec potential. For other types, smaller racks recycle in ~2/3 the bigger racks, which is 150% dam/sec.

_____________________________

Iceman
Post #: 1
RE: Missiles - 8/12/2004 3:48:03 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
I know. But I can't reduce recycling time for bigger racks as it will unbalance other weapons. LRM12 at 15 secs will outclass AC20 by far. What I can do is to increase recycle time for the smaller racks to be the same as the LRM12. But a LRM6 at 27 secs isn't very attractive. Different ranges can be explained with slightly stronger rockets carrying the same explosive warhead.

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 2
RE: Missiles - 8/12/2004 3:48:49 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
Also notice that if I'm playing a Devastator for example, I'll WANT to go to range 22, so I can use all racks. At that range LRM12s get a 4% increase in to hit, LRM9s 2%. Not very significant.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 3
RE: Missiles - 8/12/2004 3:56:20 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB
I know. But I can't reduce recycling time for bigger racks as it will unbalance other weapons. LRM12 at 15 secs will outclass AC20 by far. What I can do is to increase recycle time for the smaller racks to be the same as the LRM12. But a LRM6 at 27 secs isn't very attractive.


A middle ground value, maybe with a couple of secs difference for each rack size?
It's not just LRMs.

quote:


Different ranges can be explained with slightly stronger rockets carrying the same explosive warhead.


One ammo slot holds the same # of rockets (not reloads) for any rack independent of size (except for the LRM9, which is a fluke). This happens in every missile type. Stronger rockets should be bigger, and create more heat.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to LarkinVB)
Post #: 4
RE: Missiles - 8/12/2004 7:56:20 PM   
aquietfrog


Posts: 142
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Philippines
Status: offline
I think one other slight advantage a larger rack has is its ability to fire more missiles at a given heat level. Fore example, at heat level 49.0 C, an SRM8 could fire without heat penalty, two SRM4s however fire one rack at 49.0 C and another at heat level 54.0, giving the second rack a penalty of -5%. This is almost insignificant due to the low heat generation of SRMs, though.

I go with the suggestion of smaller recycle time gaps. Perhaps the larger rack would be 2 seconds slower plus more heat to offset the said advantage.

smaller racks would be:
advantage: faster recycle times meaning better damage/per second
disadvantage: ammo slot inefficiency.

larger racks would be:
advantage: heat penalty avoidance, better ammo slot efficiency
disavantage: slower recycle times and more heat.

the larger heat generation could be explained by thinking of each rack having an individual heat sink. smaller racks would be like multiple recons with a heat reg each and larger racks would be a singular heavy or assault. collectively, the recons would have better heat dissipation... something like that.

BTW, since we're talking about missiles already. Has it ever been suggested to have indirect fire skill slightly improve accuracy when firing inside minimum range?

< Message edited by aquietfrog -- 8/13/2004 2:19:37 AM >

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 5
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 12:37:59 AM   
Coyote27


Posts: 257
Joined: 5/13/2003
From: Pacific NW
Status: offline
If you're going to give any advantages they should go to larger racks - after all, you have to sacrifice a bit more usually to get them.

_____________________________

-Coyote

(in reply to aquietfrog)
Post #: 6
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 2:17:25 AM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
A bit more? An LRM12 weights double and occupies double space that of an LRM6, and does almost exactly the same in terms of damage in the long run. The LRM12 will sometimes produce concentrated damage hits but that's not so common to offset the extra weight/space.
If it requires double weight and space, it should deal ~double damage. Else there's no real reason for its existence.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Coyote27)
Post #: 7
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 3:12:12 AM   
Burzmali

 

Posts: 312
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Boston
Status: offline
Well, if you check the risk versus return on something like that you tend to come up short. The standard deviation of the damage done by the LRM12 on average in two salvos is much higher than the LRM6 with 4 salvos, so if you don't get a higher rate of damage, to-hit chance, or better weight or volume out of the LRM12 there is no reason to select it over the pair of LRM6.

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 8
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 5:21:53 AM   
Sleeping_Dragon


Posts: 602
Joined: 8/21/2003
From: Raleigh NC, USA
Status: offline
Good to see this discussion, I figured I was beating the system



2 SRM4s vs. 1 SRM8: same heat per salvo, same slots and wieght if they have the same # rnds, but the twin SRM4s recycle in 12secs vs the SRM8's 17secs... other factors not included: concentrated damage which got creamed for SRM/LRMs when the damage for a crit. went to >4, the posibility to only use 1 ammo slot for the larger racks to save slots, and the heat penalty avoidance as mentioned by Aquietfrog. the twin SRM4's are ~40% faster/better or SRM8s are only 70% as effective depending on how you look at the numbers, IF the titan can handle the increased heat per sec. For equal effect SRM8 would need to be an SRM11, maybe a SRM10 once other less quantifiable factors are calucated in OR the heat for the SRM8 would need to be ~8.
Unless I missed something which is entirely possible.

If I haven't missed anything... a drop to 8 heat for the SRM8 could effect some titan designs. Time consuming but could be checked for and corrected. SRM10s just sound potentially powerful, so I have the feeling I missed something... but if I didn't that's what the numbers are saying to me. Also combinations of effect are possible like a SRM9 with 9 heat. This don't even touch on less quantifiable factors like possible longer ranges or better to-hit mods for the larger racks... and that's just SRMs

Someone please poopoo these numbers and spot what I missed. I suspect I've undervalued some less quantifiable aspect of the SRMs. LRMs are more out of whack, definately need to put the heat in line with the rest of the racks at a bare minimum.

And while were on the subject of missles.... With NMs the heat is generated "per location hit" does this mean if 3 missle from the same salvo hit the same location (ie. 3 points of damage) then it's only counted once for adding the 1.8C of heat? If so this gives a huge advantage to NM7s over NM14s if your looking to heat up target. Or does "per location hit" actually mean " per missle that hits reguardless of location"?

< Message edited by Sleeping_Dragon -- 8/12/2004 10:48:30 PM >


_____________________________

Power does not corrupt; It merely attracts the corruptable.

AKA: Bblue

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 9
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 9:58:59 AM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
I feel a bit uneasy here. If you imrove on the big racks it might make them competitive to the smaller ones. But they seem to outclass comparable weapons of other types then. A LRM12 with recycle 15 for may be in line with two LRM6 but will put a AC20 to shame.

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 10
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 10:01:45 AM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

If it requires double weight and space, it should deal ~double damage. Else there's no real reason for its existence.


Why are you so harsh ? You did know the rules for years and never complained

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 11
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 12:40:00 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
Harsh? Not being harsh. Just stating my opinion. Come on, you know I was never a diplomatic kinda fella.
As for the rules, yes, so did everyone else. I never really liked the different recycle times because it's not very realistic, but it was balanced, and we all know how hard it was to balance those LRMs
I'm just pointing out that big racks "suck" when compared to smaller racks, that's all.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to LarkinVB)
Post #: 12
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 12:43:00 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

I feel a bit uneasy here. If you imrove on the big racks it might make them competitive to the smaller ones. But they seem to outclass comparable weapons of other types then. A LRM12 with recycle 15 for may be in line with two LRM6 but will put a AC20 to shame.


If the LRM12 has ~ the same recycle as the AC20, it deals max 24 damage and avr 16~18? Spread damage.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to LarkinVB)
Post #: 13
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 12:50:03 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Ok, so I will start my lonely work and tweak a bit here and there.

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 14
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 12:50:14 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
And while were on the subject of missles.... With NMs the heat is generated "per location hit" does this mean if 3 missle from the same salvo hit the same location (ie. 3 points of damage) then it's only counted once for adding the 1.8C of heat?


Yes.

quote:

If so this gives a huge advantage to NM7s over NM14s if your looking to heat up target. Or does "per location hit" actually mean " per missle that hits reguardless of location"?


This was what I edited out of one of my first posts about this subject. I didn't want to get into that just yet. It's not a huge advantage, but it's an advantage.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 15
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 1:12:36 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Any ratio behind giving larger racks less heat compared to two half sized racks ? This might balance things a little bit.

EDIT: The more I think about past tweakings I come to the conclusion that there were good reasons for the heat/recycle values of the LRM12. Perhaps we shouldn't improve on them but worsen the LRM6 !

< Message edited by LarkinVB -- 8/13/2004 1:18:37 PM >

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 16
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 1:30:08 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

I feel a bit uneasy here. If you imrove on the big racks it might make them competitive to the smaller ones. But they seem to outclass comparable weapons of other types then. A LRM12 with recycle 15 for may be in line with two LRM6 but will put a AC20 to shame.


If the LRM12 has ~ the same recycle as the AC20, it deals max 24 damage and avr 16~18? Spread damage.


at a greatly superior range .... But we can try and find out.

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 17
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 8:40:33 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aquietfrog

I think one other slight advantage a larger rack has is its ability to fire more missiles at a given heat level.


One slight disadvantage is that a damaged bigger rack fires all missiles at a penalty. One of the smaller racks damaged only affects half your firepower.
Bigger racks also have less reloads per ammo slot, so ammo slot crits (ammo loss) affects bigger racks in a bigger way.


quote:


the larger heat generation could be explained by thinking of each rack having an individual heat sink. smaller racks would be like multiple recons with a heat reg each and larger racks would be a singular heavy or assault. collectively, the recons would have better heat dissipation... something like that.


I think you're confusing things. Racks don't have heat *sinks*, they *produce* heat. The total opposite.


quote:


BTW, since we're talking about missiles already. Has it ever been suggested to have indirect fire skill slightly improve accuracy when firing inside minimum range?


Min range is about the weapon's tracking system. Doesn't have to do with the jock's skills.
And firing inside min doesn't mean firing indirect. At that range it's usually very direct.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to aquietfrog)
Post #: 18
RE: Missiles - 8/13/2004 9:03:10 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim
I'm just pointing out that big racks "suck" when compared to smaller racks, that's all.


Point is, if right now you replace each LRM12 in the database for *one* LRM6, there'll be little difference in terms of performance (heat will actually be better), BUT, you'll get a few free slots and a lot of free tonnage (an LRM6 weights less than half an LRM12) for each replaced rack. Better systems, more armor,...

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 19
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 2:10:15 AM   
Sleeping_Dragon


Posts: 602
Joined: 8/21/2003
From: Raleigh NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

I feel a bit uneasy here. If you imrove on the big racks it might make them competitive to the smaller ones. But they seem to outclass comparable weapons of other types then. A LRM12 with recycle 15 for may be in line with two LRM6 but will put a AC20 to shame.



I feel uneasy about it also... but.... to approach it from a slightly differnet angle; Do 2 LRM6s put an AC20 to shame with the system the way it is now? If not, a 'true' double damage LRM12, shouldn't.

That said, LRM12s CAN'T be 'true' double damage LRM6s, else there's no reason to even have them. The 'less quantifiable factors' I mentioned in my earlier post have to come into play to give them distinctiveness.

< Message edited by Sleeping_Dragon -- 8/13/2004 7:10:59 PM >


_____________________________

Power does not corrupt; It merely attracts the corruptable.

AKA: Bblue

(in reply to LarkinVB)
Post #: 20
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 3:27:12 AM   
Sleeping_Dragon


Posts: 602
Joined: 8/21/2003
From: Raleigh NC, USA
Status: offline
Some more anaylasis. Increasing the rack sizes in LRMs, GMs, and NMs saves internal slots, that can be a fairly big 'less quanitative effect'. SRMs may be more unbalanced then the rest since there's no slot saved by increasing rack size. With some tweaks to the LRMs, GMs, and NMs they may be brought into line easier then the SRMs... maybe decrease the range of the SRM4 by 1 (or increase the range of the SRM8) combined with some other tweaks, or give the SRM8 a +5 to-hit modifier (or -5 to the SRM4).

just throwing out ideas and observations....

_____________________________

Power does not corrupt; It merely attracts the corruptable.

AKA: Bblue

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 21
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 12:33:10 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
Yick! Don't like giving same rack type different characteristics.
Look at how BT works (though it's far from perfectly balanced). True there are no true recycle times in the boardgame; all weapons recycle in the same fixed amount of time, so an LRM20 *does* deal double damage that of an LRM10 (in simple terms, not getting into missile tables). Range is the same for all racks, and no different "weapon mods" for different racks. Heat is lower for bigger racks, tonnage is fairly proporcional (except for roundings), and slots proportional except for the IS 20 and Clan racks; same happens in IS SRMs except slots that are not proporcional at all.

Notice that by decreasing recycle time, you're increasing heat/sec. The more you decrease recycle time, the bigger burden will be placed on the heat reg, and so the fewer racks you'll be able to fire. A Devastator with all LRMs recycling in 15 secs would create 7.93C/sec!!! Way over the 5.28 it can dissipate (currently produces 5.54).
Not sure about decreasing heat for the LRMs either. A Devastator right now will go to 119C if it fires all racks. A devastating volley, which should come at a high price - the heat. Decrease that, and I'm not sure what happens.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 22
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 1:15:47 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
Hmm, I just thought of a very simple solution for UGMs. Make the bigger racks exact doubles of smaller racks. Then modify the "missile table" to make the bigger racks more effective.
All LRM racks hit with a minimum of 1/3 the rack's size currently, modified by roll. Make it something like min 1/3 for LRM6, 4/9 for LRM9 and 1/2 for LRM12. SRMs/NMs hit with min 1/2, make it 1/2 for smaller racks and 3/4 for bigger racks.
Not sure if the 50% threashold for max hits should then be changed.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 23
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 8:39:32 PM   
Sleeping_Dragon


Posts: 602
Joined: 8/21/2003
From: Raleigh NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Yick! Don't like giving same rack type different characteristics.


It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack. Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)

quote:


Notice that by decreasing recycle time, you're increasing heat/sec. The more you decrease recycle time, the bigger burden will be placed on the heat reg, and so the fewer racks you'll be able to fire. A Devastator with all LRMs recycling in 15 secs would create 7.93C/sec!!! Way over the 5.28 it can dissipate (currently produces 5.54).
Not sure about decreasing heat for the LRMs either. A Devastator right now will go to 119C if it fires all racks. A devastating volley, which should come at a high price - the heat. Decrease that, and I'm not sure what happens.


Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.

Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline) would therotically just lead to a better overall damage/sec ratio, as smaller racks are replaced by larger racks with better heat and better slot useage and additional racks (if space/slots allow) could be added. Something Larkin isn't too keen on (probably rightly so). Or free up wieght from the heat dissapation systems (HR's and Armor types) since your not producing as much heat and use it elsewhere.

That's the reasons why I'm leaning toward differnet rack characteristics (to-hit, range, other?) instead of 'full' heat/damage/recycle time adjustments to make the racks 'equal'. It creates 'balance' without greatly disturbing the status quo in titan design.

Another option would be to put the crit/stability check number back to 4, that would give the larger racks more of an advantage, but I think it was reduced for that reason to start with... or was there another reason? MGs..AC4's? If those were the reasons, juust make it so they can cause crit/stability checks.

< Message edited by Sleeping_Dragon -- 8/14/2004 1:44:18 PM >


_____________________________

Power does not corrupt; It merely attracts the corruptable.

AKA: Bblue

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 24
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 8:43:51 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
I also thought about it while looking for other factors than range/damage/heat/recycle to balance things. Will check it.

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 25
RE: Missiles - 8/14/2004 9:18:40 PM   
LarkinVB

 

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon


Another option would be to put the crit/stability check number back to 4, that would give the larger racks more of an advantage, but I think it was reduced for that reason to start with... or was there another reason? MGs..AC4's? If those were the reasons, juust make it so they can cause crit/stability checks.


small weapons including two normal missile hits in a single location shouldn't trigger a movecheck. IMO its not good to change this.

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 26
RE: Missiles - 8/15/2004 3:55:38 AM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon


Another option would be to put the crit/stability check number back to 4, that would give the larger racks more of an advantage, but I think it was reduced for that reason to start with... or was there another reason? MGs..AC4's? If those were the reasons, juust make it so they can cause crit/stability checks.


small weapons including two normal missile hits in a single location shouldn't trigger a movecheck. IMO its not good to change this.


It's a 2% chance anyway, it's not like it's going to make too much of a difference.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to LarkinVB)
Post #: 27
RE: Missiles - 8/15/2004 4:14:19 AM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack.


If they were distinct, they wouldn't have same # of missiles per slot for one.
There is a slot advantage if you can live with only one ammo slot.

quote:


Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)


???

quote:


Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.


No. You'll fire all racks every 15 secs, not some every 15 and some every 27. And you need to have something to spend the tonnage on. And assaults already have everything, maybe some equipment can be slightly improved but a big part of the tonnage will go to waste.

quote:


Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline)


Where did this come from? In line with what?

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 28
RE: Missiles - 8/15/2004 5:45:20 AM   
Sleeping_Dragon


Posts: 602
Joined: 8/21/2003
From: Raleigh NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack.


If they were distinct, they wouldn't have same # of missiles per slot for one.
There is a slot advantage if you can live with only one ammo slot.



Why wouldn't they have the same # of missle per slot? There's more to a missle rack then the missle.

The slot advantage is only available IF you drop the number of rounds, the other racks will give you a slot advantage and still keep a similiar number of rounds by using 2 slots and still have a slot left over.

quote:


quote:


Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)


???


Every REAL gun that fires a 9mm round don't have identical firing properties. A lot of the time, it's differences with the gun, not the ammo. Not all weapon rack have to have the same to-hit mod.



quote:


quote:


Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.


No. You'll fire all racks every 15 secs, not some every 15 and some every 27. And you need to have something to spend the tonnage on. And assaults already have everything, maybe some equipment can be slightly improved but a big part of the tonnage will go to waste.



Huh? I thought that was what I said, "if you had all LRMs recycle at 15".

The tonnage wouldn't have to go to waste, You'd have free slots from the 'missing' missle racks.


quote:


quote:


Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline)


Where did this come from? In line with what?


Heat is one of the factors that can be adjusted to balance things. If it was solely used to balance the racks the reduction would be pretty dramatic.

In line with respect to each other... balanced

< Message edited by Sleeping_Dragon -- 8/14/2004 10:50:01 PM >


_____________________________

Power does not corrupt; It merely attracts the corruptable.

AKA: Bblue

(in reply to Thorgrim)
Post #: 29
RE: Missiles - 8/15/2004 12:33:54 PM   
Thorgrim

 

Posts: 2369
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
It don't bother me if it better balances the racks and gives them distictivness, especially the SRMs since there's usually no slot advantage to the larger rack.


If they were distinct, they wouldn't have same # of missiles per slot for one.
There is a slot advantage if you can live with only one ammo slot.



Why wouldn't they have the same # of missle per slot? There's more to a missle rack then the missle.


Did I say missile rack? I said ammo slot.

quote:


The slot advantage is only available IF you drop the number of rounds, the other racks will give you a slot advantage and still keep a similiar number of rounds by using 2 slots and still have a slot left over.


That's what I said, yes, IF. As in giving you alternatives.
Don't really understand your calculations there.

quote:


quote:


quote:


Some 'similiar' weapons are better then others is certian areas and worse in others, (ie. not all guns of the same caliber have the same characteristics, carry that over to missles.)


???


Every REAL gun that fires a 9mm round don't have identical firing properties. A lot of the time, it's differences with the gun, not the ammo. Not all weapon rack have to have the same to-hit mod.


Hmm, you're comparing 9mm weapons, and transposing that to different rack sizes? One of us is not thinking straight. So should MGs (or any other weapon) have variable range rolled for when they're assembled to each different design? To accomodate factory specifications and all that.

quote:


quote:


quote:


Well if you had all LRMs recycle at 15, then heat is your limiting factor, pull off a couple racks, bring your heat back in line, you'll end up with the approximately the same overall damage/sec ratios you started with (since you have faster recycle times) and a bunch of free wieght to use elsewhere for things that don't create heat.


No. You'll fire all racks every 15 secs, not some every 15 and some every 27. And you need to have something to spend the tonnage on. And assaults already have everything, maybe some equipment can be slightly improved but a big part of the tonnage will go to waste.



Huh? I thought that was what I said, "if you had all LRMs recycle at 15".


Yes, and what I said was, you may end up with the same overall dama/sec ratios, but you'll be pumping out fulls volleys every 15 secs instead of distributed over time. 12 secs is a long time. You can get a kill with a full volley.

quote:



The tonnage wouldn't have to go to waste, You'd have free slots from the 'missing' missle racks.


And probably nothing else to put there?

quote:




quote:


quote:


Decreasing heat drastically (enough to bring the racks inline)


Where did this come from? In line with what?


Heat is one of the factors that can be adjusted to balance things. If it was solely used to balance the racks the reduction would be pretty dramatic.

In line with respect to each other... balanced


Did someone ever mention only changing heat? I don't get the point.

_____________________________

Iceman

(in reply to Sleeping_Dragon)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Titans of Steel - Warring Suns >> Missiles Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180