These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Destroyers for orbital bombardment? Really??

First post First post
Author
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#101 - 2013-01-10 13:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.

Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.

So, small guns can hit any arbitarily distant target provided that target's motion is known with sufficient precision. The same goes for medium, large and XL guns. The only difference is how big of a kaboom you get.

Small guns = still a pretty bloody big kaboom.
medium guns = OMGWTFsplosion
Large guns = rocks fall, everybody dies
XL guns = the only way to be sure.

The feature shall be iterated upon as the game progresses. DUST is still in its infancy.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders

ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2013-01-10 14:02:03 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.

Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.



This would only hold completely true if EVE were based on standard space physics. The problem there is, it isn't. EVE space is based on fluid dynamics (to a degree at least), hence our ships coming to rest when the engines are shut off, and why we do not continue to accelerate if we leave our engines switched on.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2013-01-10 14:03:48 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
It may be worth remembering just how big and powerful the shells are that we use in EVE when compared to standard ground based weaponry. Gallente destroyers with rails will usually fire 125mm shells, slightly smaller than the 130mm shells fired by modern naval destroyers.

We know how much damage that kind of real life shell can cause, now imagine those shells being filled with anti-matter! And now imagine a shell half a metre across made of the same stuff travelling a good percentage the speed of light, the kind fired from a 425mm battleship railgun. The kinetic damage alone would vaporise a large portion of the area. Add in the anti--matter and you wouldn't just kill a few DUST soldiers, you would vaporise a few square kilometres.


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

gravitation and stuff? Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-01-10 14:15:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
In-character/out-of-character separation, mate. It's pretty easy to get your head around: Just because the ships move that way doesn't mean the ammo does. The laws of physics still apply in the EVE universe, they just may not be accurately represented on our screens because gameplay comes first, realism second.

(btw, the lore explaining the "fluid space" thing is that warp fields produce "drag" and have to remain permanently online because if they lose power they implode and annihilate any matter caught inside them, hence why your ships suffer critical existence failures - your last structure HP represents the moment when your ship can no longer provide power to the warp engine and the field collapses)

Where realism actually produces cool stuff, it sticks around. In this case, reality is pretty frakking badass because it means that if you throw something off into space at speed, the odds are that it will eventually hit something.

Realism doesn't stick around for ship motion otherwise our fights would involve razzing around at 90% of lightspeed, several hundred AUs apart. Each fight would take seven years, time-dilated down to an apparent seven weeks due to relativistic effects, and would consist of launching some missiles and lasers, taking evasive action, then waiting for seven weeks to see which ship, if any, explodes, rinse and repeat until one of you makes a fatal mistake. That would not be much fun as a game, so realism is neglected in favour of gameplay.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#105 - 2013-01-10 14:18:53 UTC
Fleur Kendall wrote:
Source is CCP Nullabor from this Dev Blog

Under "The Tools of War" subheading he says

"We are also enabling the ultimate in cross game escapades, Orbital Bombardment, with the first flavor being the Tactical Strike...you can load up these special long range, high precision munitions into suitable small turret weapons and rain fire from the skies...more guns are just better, so I recommend the destroyer hull...for this particular task"


Obviously this doesn't mean that it is limited to being fitted to only small ships, but I wait to see how the mechanics pan out I guess...

Destroyers are a long-held traditional close-support vessel IRL. You only bring in the big guys when you *really* want to do some landscaping. If you want what you're assaulting to still be more-or-less intact, you use the small guys.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Coreola
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2013-01-10 14:41:09 UTC
Yea, my thoughts on this would be why should I risk my 300mil battleship for something I can accomplish more safely in a 4mil destroyer?

Guess it just depends on the payouts. Can't imagine people on Dust will be dropping millions on orbital strikes every match, but who knows.

Jump, jump, jump.

Ginger Barbarella
#107 - 2013-01-10 14:53:57 UTC
Oki Riverson wrote:
Thomas Gore wrote:
Why would a battleship waste time firing into a 24 man skirmish?

DUST is not Planetside 2, the scale is tiny.


Not the point ... Why can't my Coercer hit you from 10,000km away in Eve. It's also fairly risk free to said destroyer pilot. fit stabs and align :(


Risk free to be sitting in a frigate or dessie in a FW warzone.

Yeah... Roll

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

iskflakes
#108 - 2013-01-10 15:01:48 UTC
Stitcher wrote:

optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.

Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.


So why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range? Why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)? Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others?

Nothing about EVE weapons is realistic.

-

Abu Tarynnia
Kings-Guard
Sigma Grindset
#109 - 2013-01-10 15:43:36 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
Stitcher wrote:

optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.

Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.


So why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range? Why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)? Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others?

Nothing about EVE weapons is realistic.


Play World of tanks if you want something 'realistic' :)

YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!!

Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#110 - 2013-01-10 16:13:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
iskflakes wrote:
So why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)?


damage is partly a function of where the round hits. Precise shots that hit weak spots do more damage. Shots that hit an armour plate at a flat angle glance off. From further away, it's more difficult to aim a round wit the precision to hit those weak spots to do the most harm (represented in-game by a penalty on your attack result roll).

Quote:
Why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range? Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others?


Because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY. Pirate

as I said above, whenever there's a conflict between realism and gameplay, gameplay wins. What we see on our screens is the "gameplay-ized" version of what's happening, rather than what would be happening if that scenario played out realistically.

I mean, if armour was portrayed realistically in EVE, each plate would cover specific systems (engines, warp drive, weapon control etc) and would have a chance-based likelihood of negating a hit on that system, modified by the power of the weapon and how many such hits each plate has already taken. It wouldn't be an ablative HP buffer that's reduced equally across the entire ship regardless of where the damage comes from

(TBH, I'd actually really love it if armour behaved that way, that sounds like a great mechanic)

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders

Veronica Kerrigan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2013-01-10 16:13:32 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
I do find it funny that in space small guns can't hit a stationary target 20km away, but somehow they can hit a target 300km away on the surface of a planet with accuracy on the order of a few meters.

This choice has been made for the benefit of DUST players, who will want to try out EVE and be shelling a planet within a few minutes.

If battleships are ever allowed to fire at planets it will only be 1.2x as good as a destroyer.


Shooting down is easy enough. Rail and artillery shells would have very little trouble finding their target. Once you account for how the planet is moving, you can guide the shell in no problem. A couple of fins can direct the weapon to wherever it needs to go, and keeps accelerating by gravity. In space we have no such ability to guide our projectiles in, meaning we have less effective range.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2013-01-10 16:15:41 UTC
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

optimal range + falloff in EVE isn't a measure of how long your round last before disintegrating (except with blasters) it's a measure of how far out the ship can reliably hit stuff with that kind of gun before things get so extreme that any hit you did score would constitute divine intervention.

Fire a hybrid round, and it will fly off into space to ruin somebody's day, somewhere, sometime. If you got things right, the person whose day it ruins is your intended target's.



This would only hold completely true if EVE were based on standard space physics. The problem there is, it isn't. EVE space is based on fluid dynamics (to a degree at least), hence our ships coming to rest when the engines are shut off, and why we do not continue to accelerate if we leave our engines switched on.


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

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2013-01-10 16:18:49 UTC
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
You may want to read up on EVE's lore. The 425mm shells fired by Gallente Hybrid weapons do contain anti-matter (most likely suspended as it is in real life in a magnetic bottle) and are fired at a considerable percentage of the speed of light.


Then why according to EvE lore do they magically cease to be at 30 or 40km?

As i have repeatedly said, i'm aware EvE doesn't (and shouldn't) simulate real physics. But the scenario in question doesn't even fit with EvE's version of physics and that's where i feel there is a break in imersion happening. Also the gameplay element but i'm happy to wait n see how that unfolds.


I suspect the magnetic bottle runs out of energy to susain it's containment field, in which case the shell would just evaporate. I'd do it the same way, it's a nice safety mechanism to prevent stray shots hitting anything You dont want to hit, outside of a certain range ofc.



Now that seems like a perfectly acceptable reason to me. For other shells, perhaps a simple explosive charge to facilitate the same dignified and safe "end" to a shells existence should it fail to strike its target. Poor shells Sad They either explode on impact, or they just explode Sad Not much of a life really.


That's what happens to modern real-life shells and missiles - modern ordnance is rigged with proximity and timed fuses to ensure, in case of a miss, the closest possible detonation, or otherwise, to deny the recovery of advanced munitions by the enemy. Air-to-air missiles are a perfect example of this - if a fighter pilot manages to evade one, and the missile detects that it's trajectory has suddenly changed from moving closer to the target to moving further away, it will explode for the chance that shrapnel will damage the intended target.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2013-01-10 16:21:16 UTC
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
It may be worth remembering just how big and powerful the shells are that we use in EVE when compared to standard ground based weaponry. Gallente destroyers with rails will usually fire 125mm shells, slightly smaller than the 130mm shells fired by modern naval destroyers.

We know how much damage that kind of real life shell can cause, now imagine those shells being filled with anti-matter! And now imagine a shell half a metre across made of the same stuff travelling a good percentage the speed of light, the kind fired from a 425mm battleship railgun. The kinetic damage alone would vaporise a large portion of the area. Add in the anti--matter and you wouldn't just kill a few DUST soldiers, you would vaporise a few square kilometres.


So.... why doesn't it? I mean, when a round strikes the ground, why are there buildings still standing? I don't suppose they're made of some uber-resistant material (unobtanium, for example) that is available in sufficient quantities to make indestructible buildings. And if so... where is this material so I may construct my starships from it?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#115 - 2013-01-10 16:23:24 UTC
iskflakes wrote:


So why can't you hit a stationary target at arbitrary range?

Ever hear of divergance? Even a tiny fraction of a % of error becomes large, as range increases. 1 minute of angle at 100 yards is a one inch error. At 100,000 yards it's a thousand inches. At a million yards... I'm sure you get the picture.

Quote:
Why does damage decrease in falloff (the shell should not have slowed down)?

See divergence, above, and also: what Stitcher said.

Quote:
Why if you miss one ship in a bunch of ships can't you hit the others?

See divergence, and also - Space is BIG. Your shot is small. Ships are moving at very large relative velocities - if you're not tracking it specifically, your chance of hitting it is *very* small. IRL: If you're gunning for ducks, and you miss your shot, does another duck fall? Nope.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#116 - 2013-01-10 16:24:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:

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

Which is why I love it so. Twisted

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2013-01-10 16:25:16 UTC
They're obviously trying it out with small guns / ammo first to make sure the cross game mechanics are working, before rolling out the Just Nuke the Site From Orbit; It's the Only Way to Be Sure version. One might even speculate that at some point the small munitions will be removed or neutered and this will be transitioned to a large / extra-large weapon only feature, which would make somewhat more sense. If something like that does happen, maybe those small tac munitions will become a nice little collector curiosity some day.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2013-01-10 16:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
silens vesica wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

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

Which is why I love it so. Twisted


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.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#119 - 2013-01-10 16:29:55 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
One might even speculate that at some point the small munitions will be removed or neutered and this will be transitioned to a large / extra-large weapon only feature, which would make somewhat more sense. If something like that does happen, maybe those small tac munitions will become a nice little collector curiosity some day.
Nah.

Even when there were big-gun cruisers and battleships for Naval Gunfire Support, the lowly Destroyer had its place.

When you want something small hit precisely, or want to blow something up in close proximity to friendly crunchies, the Destroyer is your go-to platform. When you want to do large-scale urban renewal or industrial landscaping, the Battleship is your friend.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Abu Tarynnia
Kings-Guard
Sigma Grindset
#120 - 2013-01-10 16:30:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


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


*cackle* !!!! Blink

YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!!