These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Keno Skir
#41 - 2013-01-10 11:09:24 UTC
In before someone says "Gravity"

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Jess Maine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-01-10 11:13:14 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
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.


It instakills infantry.
iskflakes
#43 - 2013-01-10 11:13:46 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
In before someone says "Gravity"


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.

-
Nockturna
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2013-01-10 11:14:16 UTC
Duries Kain wrote:
Nockturna wrote:
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.


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?


Who said they are turning the tides of the battle or supposed too, infact they should not be that OP at all. They just do some amount of dmg on an area (more area less dmg, less area more dmg etc. depends on the ammo).

Dust guys will get bigger toys eventually and there will be need for bigger space ammo. Dreads will have their role just not yet.
Keno Skir
#45 - 2013-01-10 11:14:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Keno Skir
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.


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.

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#46 - 2013-01-10 11:22:34 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
In before someone says "Gravity"


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.


Are you trying to suggest there is a shell to begin with? Which would like, hit something that is in its path between the turret and the target? :)

EVE has no physics. It's a spreadsheet with a nice powerpoint pulled over the numbers to make it prettier. True story.
Abu Tarynnia
Kings-Guard
Sigma Grindset
#47 - 2013-01-10 11:28:33 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.


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 ! Roll

YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!!
Gerard Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2013-01-10 11:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Gerard Hareka
It makes sense.

If you fire from small guns , your shoot is targeted.

if you would fire from dreadnought it would just level entire dust battlefield.
Get you calibers and tech of weapons right.
Xervish Krin
Intaki Fine Stationery Solutions
#49 - 2013-01-10 11:33:00 UTC
'The first flavour is the tactical strike'

I assume we'll be seeing strategic and whatever strikes as well, for medium and large guns. Makes sense to start out with the smaller airstrike-inbound type attacks to test before moving on to raze-the-battlefield-with-a-BS.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#50 - 2013-01-10 11:33:14 UTC
Duries Kain wrote:
Orbital Strikes should go off from Dreads in Siege. Everything else is just so stupid


Absolutely agree. Or from Titans.


Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Abu Tarynnia
Kings-Guard
Sigma Grindset
#51 - 2013-01-10 11:34:38 UTC
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 Lol

YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!!
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-01-10 11:35:51 UTC
Abu Tarynnia 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.


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 ! Roll




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.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
NickyYo
modro
Northern Coalition.
#53 - 2013-01-10 11:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: NickyYo
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...

..
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2013-01-10 11:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD TYPE40
Keno Skir 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.


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.



The size of the shell has nothing to do with the distance it travels. My post was in reference to someone asking why, at least at first, only destroyers will be used and why only small ammunition is available. As for the mechanics of why a shell fired at a planet will travel further than in space, no-one here has an answer for that, though at the end of the Dev Blog it does say that a further blog will be forthcoming soon that details the mechanics of orbital strikes.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Deathan Taxxis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2013-01-10 11:40:59 UTC
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.

I'm hoping for an interface that requires the bombarding ship to enter a low orbit (lower than LEO) before it can engage and likewise leave orbit before it can warp off. This would mean the attacking ship would be vulnerable to space attacks, realistically vulnerable to ground attacks and clear up the confusion about it's weaponry ranges. Hopefully it will also make the ship visible during DUST gameplay.
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2013-01-10 11:41:13 UTC
Abu Tarynnia wrote:
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 Lol



There is another game in development at the moment, funded by a Kickstarter program, that uses this exact method of bombarding the enemy. You can literally slingshot asteroids at your opponents planets. Sadly the name of said game eludes me...Sad

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#57 - 2013-01-10 11:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lipbite
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.
Abu Tarynnia
Kings-Guard
Sigma Grindset
#58 - 2013-01-10 11:45:25 UTC
ISD TYPE40 wrote:
Abu Tarynnia 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.


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 ! Roll




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.


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 Roll

YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!!
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#59 - 2013-01-10 11:45:45 UTC
To answer the guy who asking about the accuracy of bombardments compared to space combat, dont forget in order to bne able to bombard someone on the ground has to chuck down a beacon that does the equivilant of laying out a big sign saying 'PLEASE SHOOT HERE'

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Meita Way
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2013-01-10 11:48:20 UTC
Lipbite wrote:
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.


Frankly, because you can. 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.