[Suggestion] Add arming distance to seeker missiles.

[KG_Jedi]

We all (maybe not all) know that torpedos now have "self-arming distance", equal to 2km. What that means, is that if launched torpedo hits anything before it flies 2 km after launch, it just goes poof without delivering damage. That is actually good thing, since before that was introduced in 2.1, people fired torpedos point blank, rendering PDs and ECMs almost useless.

However issue still there with missiles. Especially thermal cascade ones. Enemy can fire missiles from very close distance, they fly fast, turn well and still deliver damage/heat even if fired from point blank distance. What if missiles had a "self-arming distance" too? So that pilot needs to make sure there is a distance between him and target before firing? That would make PDs and ECMs have more meaning.

I made a lot combat with both NPCs and people, and 90% of missiles I recieved were fired at very close distances, 500-2000m. Only about 30% of missiles were succesfully intercepted by my 4 PDs on Federal Corvette. What if these were actually Thermal Cascade missiles? Players are smarter than NPCs, they would fire them at point blank to make sure PDs cannot intercept them. And since these deliver heat, heatsinks, shield boosters and PDs are first modules to cook up and malfunction, leaving ship defenceless.

So, please consider adding such "self arming timer" to missiles as well. As counter to that nerf, their damage can be boosted.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Yeah, but dude, that's the strength/weakness combo of the seeker, at least in my opinion.

PROS:

Long Range Accuracy
Stand-off Tactics
Excellent Damage
Excellent Submodule Targeting
​

CONS:

Limited Ammo
Target Lock Time (esp at short range)
Susceptible to PD at range
​

So one of the tactics you can use, if your opponent is PD enabled, is to push in to a close enough range that the PD cannot track and engage your missiles quickly enough. This comes at the price of losing lock on your target and having to take time to re-acquire (as well as the threat of splash damage, I assume, since missiles do have splash damage).

If these things were to have an extended arming range, it would make them completely useless against PD modules. As it is, it is an effective tactic for smaller, seeker-armed ships, to get in past the enemy's spear-tip and drive blows home.

 

[Truesilver]

Something I have been meaning to get around to testing is this:-

My Pack Hounds appear to 'bunch' if fired from within about 500m of the target ... i.e. they come out in one glowing ball, don't spread and hit as a ball.

I think that they may not do any damage when this happens. But like I say, I've been meaning to test.

If that is so, though, then there may already be an 'arming distance' - on Pack Hounds, at least.

I'd be grateful if any other Pack Hound users could share any observations about this...?

 

[CMDR Ash]

Something I have been meaning to get around to testing is this:-

My Pack Hounds appear to 'bunch' if fired from within about 500m of the target ... i.e. they come out in one glowing ball, don't spread and hit as a ball.

I think that they may not do any damage when this happens. But like I say, I've been meaning to test.

If that is so, though, then there may already be an 'arming distance' - on Pack Hounds, at least.

I'd be grateful if any other Pack Hound users could share any observations about this...?

 

[Deleted member 115407]

To add to my last -- a big part of the problem is that in most cases, there is little in the way of battlefield tactics when it comes to this game. CZs, are a great example. What you see in them now is a big, disorganized scrum, where ships just attack each other freely without any kind of real coordination (I'm talking about a level higher than the "wing"). I also see this with the cap ship battles... bad guys spawn, attack the capital ship, get killed... rinse, repeat. Corvettes and Condas are used like dogfighters, trying to maneuver into firing positions. This is wrong. It's why poorly trained militaries get their asses handed to them.

What should be happening is the ships should be organized into task forces and task groups, where Corvettes and Condas provide fire-support for smaller ships who are doing the dogfighting, and wings of fighters should be moving in to clear the CAP from the capital ships, so that heavy "bombers" can move in to make coordinated strikes against their weak points. In this scenario, interceptors would be chasing the "seeker" enabled ships, preventing them from maintaining lock on the heavier guys, who are providing turret fire and point defense. A base of fire, if you will, kind of like a machinegun nest.

Like modern naval tactics, where the battleships (who provide the big guns) and carriers are protected by air/surface defense cruisers and destroyers.

Imagine the kind of damage that a squadron of two Condas and eight Vipers could do, if properly coordinated. It would be a very tough nut to crack.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Something I have been meaning to get around to testing is this:-

My Pack Hounds appear to 'bunch' if fired from within about 500m of the target ... i.e. they come out in one glowing ball, don't spread and hit as a ball.

I think that they may not do any damage when this happens. But like I say, I've been meaning to test.

If that is so, though, then there may already be an 'arming distance' - on Pack Hounds, at least.

I'd be grateful if any other Pack Hound users could share any observations about this...?

I've also been meaning to test if firing both of my seekers simultaneously is working against me, damage-wise. That is, when both missiles impact "simultaneously", is one hitting first and nullifying or reducing the effect of the other.

About to head to the CZ, and will give it a test.

 

[Bacalao]

To add to my last -- a big part of the problem is that in most cases, there is little in the way of battlefield tactics when it comes to this game. CZs, are a great example. What you see in them now is a big, disorganized scrum, where ships just attack each other freely without any kind of real coordination (I'm talking about a level higher than the "wing"). I also see this with the cap ship battles... bad guys spawn, attack the capital ship, get killed... rinse, repeat. Corvettes and Condas are used like dogfighters, trying to maneuver into firing positions. This is wrong. It's why poorly trained militaries get their asses handed to them.

What should be happening is Corvettes and Condas should be providing fire-support for smaller ships who are doing the dogfighting, and wings of fighters should be moving in to clear the CAP from the capital ships, so that heavy "bombers" can move in to make coordinated strikes against their weak points. In this scenario, interceptors would be chasing the "seeker" enabled ships, preventing them from maintaining lock on the heavier guys, who are providing turret fire and point defense. A base of fire, if you will, kind of like a machinegun nest.

Imagine the kind of damage that a squadron of two Condas and eight Vipers could do, if properly coordinated. It would be a very tough nut to crack.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



I've also been meaning to test if firing both of my seekers simultaneously is working against me, damage-wise. That is, when both missiles impact "simultaneously", is one hitting first and nullifying or reducing the effect of the other.

About to head to the CZ, and will give it a test.

You're assuming Annies and Corvettes are heavy turret boats, they aren't. Those are capital ships. We fly light fighters, fighters and heavy fighters and Lakon ships. In game description calls the vulture a heavy fighter, but it also says the annie can launch a sidey...in game descriptions are worthless.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

You're assuming Annies and Corvettes are heavy turret boats, they aren't. Those are capital ships. We fly light fighters, fighters and heavy fighters and Lakon ships. In game description calls the vulture a heavy fighter, but it also says the annie can launch a sidey...in game descriptions are worthless.

And as such, they should operate like capital ships, and be protected like capital ships. At least like heavy warships.

The small guys (Eagle, Viper, Cobra) are the interecptors/pursuit planes, the Vultures, Mk IVs and such are the torpedo/dive bombers.

Condas and Corvettes are proper "warships".

My point is that there are no combined arms tactics in this game, at least at the NPC level. And if you're going to fly your light "warship" into a 1v1 battle, there are modules that won't perform as well as they would were you operating in a coordinated force.

The standard infantryman doesn't carry an M240 machinegun around with him. The M240 is great when properly applied at the platoon level, but near useless when used for small infantry tactics.

 

[askavir]

Leave missiles alone.

Missiles have been flying turds since launch, only since 2.1 they became actually useful. Plus they are fun.

They already have their own counters: PD, very limited ammo, low overall damage.

If some special effects make them overpowered, then nerf or get rid of the special effects. Don't ruin the missiles again, only just now they actually became useful.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I saw a documentary recently wherein the B-29 (I think it was the B-29) was discussed. It was marketed as being impenetrable due to it's overall hardpoints. In actuality, when it went up without fighter escort it got its ass handed to it by enemy fighters.

Same as tanks. You don't just go riding your tank around in tight terrain without infantry support. The tank is great when your enemy is 500m away. Not so great when they are 5m away.

 

[Lobstris]

<Points at the game Starshatter> That. Why can't space combat be like that? (For those who don't know Starshatter played like a cross between Falcon 4, Harpoon and Freespace - It generates missions, such as Combat Air Patrols, probing and recon attacks, before getting to strikes, uses small frigate ships with point defence as pickets for larger ships etc. and light ship combat relies on missiles being used first, at longer ranges, before getting to guns) Elite just throws random ships together in no apparent order, without reason, with no real winner or loser, at very close ranges, just as a playground for the player to kill as many things as possible before they run out of ordnance or need repairs. Disappointing to say the least.

OK Elite will never have proper military dynamic campaigns in, and is hampered by the limited range of scanners and weapons (every fight is a knife fight) and the p2p instancing (limits NPC counts - so no fighter swarms), but it would be nice to see better tactics from ships (e.g. defending light ships trying to cover larger ships), and I'd love to see missions being generated with respect to 'phases' of a conflict, rather than just 'kill 'X' ships'.

One can but dream. Anyway, back ON topic a) Do we trust Elite's networking when it comes to adding arming distances to things?, and b) Aren't all fights at such close range that it would mean most missiles would be duds again? I could see some sense in arming distances if scanners and missiles had ranges out to 10, 20, 50+ km.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway#Battle

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Mikuma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Mikuma#Battle_of_Midway

The following morning, 6 June 1942, Mikuma and Mogami were heading for Wake Island when they were attacked by three waves of SBD Dauntless dive-bombers, comprising 31 aircraft, from the aircraft carriers USS Enterprise and Hornet. Arashio and Asashio were each hit by a bomb. Mogami was hit by six bombs. Mikuma was hit by at least five bombs in the forecastle, bridge area and amidships and set afire. The hit on the forecastle put the forward guns out of commission.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

<Points at the game Starshatter> That. Why can't space combat be like that... Harpoon

My god... I would never leave this game.

 

[cluelessforumuser65578]

Leave missiles alone.

Missiles have been flying turds since launch, only since 2.1 they became actually useful. Plus they are fun.

They already have their own counters: PD, very limited ammo, low overall damage.

If some special effects make them overpowered, then nerf or get rid of the special effects. Don't ruin the missiles again, only just now they actually became useful.

i agree, remove all heat generating effects from weapons that make applying it to targets trivial eg all gimbal weapons, seekers and hitscan weapons. besides, putting an arming time on seekers would make the drag munition effect redundant since its obviously meant to be used up close

 

[Bacalao]

Leave missiles alone.

Missiles have been flying turds since launch, only since 2.1 they became actually useful. Plus they are fun.

They already have their own counters: PD, very limited ammo, low overall damage.

If some special effects make them overpowered, then nerf or get rid of the special effects. Don't ruin the missiles again, only just now they actually became useful.

They are fun, but they're a very punishing rock to anything that looks like scissors and that's pretty boring. Something needs tuning. IMO, ECM should reset missile lock and AFMs need to work much faster. Limited ammo also isn't really a thing with synthesis and you can pretend their damage is low all you want, but it hits hard, probably overly hard, where it's intended. I think the pendulum swung too far.

 

[Lobstris]

My god... I would never leave this game.

If you didn't play it, I'd recommend Starshatter (or the revamped, re-release "The Gathering Storm"). There were 5 (short-ish) campaigns that told an interesting story - but it was all done by a single developer, who seemed to burn out and disappear in the end. Good news is that it's out there on the web...

Back on topic - Does ECM actually work well now in Elite? I've not really tried it in favour of mounting PD cannons.

 

[Bacalao]

And as such, they should operate like capital ships, and be protected like capital ships. At least like heavy warships.

The small guys (Eagle, Viper, Cobra) are the interecptors/pursuit planes, the Vultures, Mk IVs and such are the torpedo/dive bombers.

Condas and Corvettes are proper "warships".

My point is that there are no combined arms tactics in this game, at least at the NPC level. And if you're going to fly your light "warship" into a 1v1 battle, there are modules that won't perform as well as they would were you operating in a coordinated force.

The standard infantryman doesn't carry an M240 machinegun around with him. The M240 is great when properly applied at the platoon level, but near useless when used for small infantry tactics.

I totally agree.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I could see some sense in arming distances if scanners and missiles had ranges out to 10, 20, 50+ km.

Dude, proper stand-off warfare in this game would be sweet

Though I think it would kill gameplay a bit. But just look at those ranges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow#Sparrow_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

 

[ROSS-128]

And as such, they should operate like capital ships, and be protected like capital ships. At least like heavy warships.

The small guys (Eagle, Viper, Cobra) are the interecptors/pursuit planes, the Vultures, Mk IVs and such are the torpedo/dive bombers.

Condas and Corvettes are proper "warships".

My point is that there are no combined arms tactics in this game, at least at the NPC level. And if you're going to fly your light "warship" into a 1v1 battle, there are modules that won't perform as well as they would were you operating in a coordinated force.

The standard infantryman doesn't carry an M240 machinegun around with him. The M240 is great when properly applied at the platoon level, but near useless when used for small infantry tactics.

As much as I find the Corvette's ability to turn on a dime amusing, it is rather silly that it's built as a 168m long "fighter" instead of actually being designed like a small capital ship.

For example, a Corvette with A-rated thrusters can pitch at about 30 degrees/s, or about .52 rad/s. Assuming it rotates about the midpoint of its long axis (I can already tell you its center of mass is more toward the rear than that, but we're simplifying here) that gives a rotational radius of 84m. This gives the nose a tangential velocity of 43.68 m/s, which means someone standing in the nose would experience a centripetal acceleration of 22.7 m/s^2 due to turning, or about 2.3 Gs.

Being able to generate 2.3 Gs by turning on the spot is pretty impressive, though what's more impressive is it can do so almost instantly without having to "rev up" first.

A lot of the inconsistency has to do with the flight model the game uses. We have low (for space) speed caps, but extremely high acceleration, especially when boosting. A Federal Assault Ship can be outfitted to weigh almost 2000 tons, but still go from 0 to 400 m/s in about half a second. Which besides putting over 80 Gs on the pilot also means that the thrusters are putting out about 1.6 GN* (that's GigaNewtons, about 359,694,400 lbf for the Imperials here) of thrust during a boost. This is roughly the equivalent of 206 Rocketdyne F1 engines. If our ships didn't have speed caps they would easily qualify as torchships.

(*2 million kg times 800m/s^2, these aren't precise in-game values but rough estimates for illustration purposes)

Of course, I know *why* it's like that. A true Newtonian model would be incredibly unresponsive and drifty, which would make it either frustrating or absolutely terrifying to fly. It would also be math-intensive because your ship's mass would suddenly be tremendously important for everything, and weird or arbitrary mass values could be game-breaking. It would be unintuitive, because "fast" would be defined acceleration rather than top speed. But it still produces some funny results.

Of course, then there's how 300,000 cubic meters of Anaconda weighs less than 84,000 cubic meters of Dropship, because FSDs and shield generators don't have enough gradient to deal with large differences in mass gracefully. This game actually doesn't scale very well into the high end, once you get past about class 4 or 5 in most modules, the game starts really bending over backwards to stretch classes 6-8 across vastly different hulls.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

They are fun, but they're a very punishing rock to anything that looks like scissors and that's pretty boring. Something needs tuning. IMO, ECM should reset missile lock and AFMs need to work much faster. Limited ammo also isn't really a thing with synthesis and you can pretend their damage is low all you want, but it hits hard, probably overly hard, where it's intended. I think the pendulum swung too far.

And therein the problem lies. If proper formations are unlikely to be used in-game, then the weapons themselves must be balanced to accommodate.

A tough call to make on FD's part, I think.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If you didn't play it, I'd recommend Starshatter (or the revamped, re-release "The Gathering Storm"). There were 5 (short-ish) campaigns that told an interesting story - but it was all done by a single developer, who seemed to burn out and disappear in the end. Good news is that it's out there on the web...

Back on topic - Does ECM actually work well now in Elite? I've not really tried it in favour of mounting PD cannons.

No clue. I've been meaning to try it, but NPCs just favor mass drivers now, so there hasn't been a really good reason to.

 

[askavir]

They are fun, but they're a very punishing rock to anything that looks like scissors and that's pretty boring. Something needs tuning. IMO, ECM should reset missile lock and AFMs need to work much faster. Limited ammo also isn't really a thing with synthesis and you can pretend their damage is low all you want, but it hits hard, probably overly hard, where it's intended. I think the pendulum swung too far.

You speak of synthesis as if it was something that falls out of the sky and can be used ad infinitum.

Missiles have very low ammo, and synthesis involves quite a bit of work for each reload. Also missiles hit "hard"... for a class 1/2 weapon, but have no sustained damage, are counterable by point defence and shields, and are easily beaten in terms of overall damage by pretty much every class 3 or 4 weapon (that on top of it have much more ammo and sustained damage).

Nerfing the missiles would reduce them to irrelevancy (again), as no one would waste hardpoints carrying around low powered weapons with only a handful of available shots.

Stop thinking about one-on-one, single fight PvP and think of the whole picture.