![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
Missile Targeting and *GASP* Mine Fields
A couple of ideas I came up with on the drive to work this morning:
First and foremost, change the way missile targeting works (Radi will hate me for this one). With so much emphasis being put on pilot skill, even in the old Jumpgate, it was always possible just to spam a swarm of missiles at your current target. Never a fun position to be in when you're on the receiving end, and to me it always felt a bit cheap. The way I envision missile targeting to work is by using the "reticle on target" model that's common in a lot of flight sims, where you need to keep your crosshairs on the other guy for a few seconds before achieving lock on. The time needed to lock on would be dependent on the type of missiles used (higher damage means more time to achieve a lock). This would accomplish two things IMO. For starters, it would make using missiles in combat more skill-oriented and less cheesy. The need to keep your crosshairs on target would mean you couldn't lead a target on the move in order to use your mounted guns, so using missiles and guns together would be very difficult. Making missile usage more deliberate and less of an "oh ****" afterthought could possibly open the door for a legitimate missile barge ship design, but that's pushing the envelope of the Jumpgate mentality. The other idea I had centers on using deployable mine fields. I always thought they'd be cool to have in Jumpgate (though I'm sure it'll be unpopular with a lot of people). They saw great success in Allegiance as the ultimate way to embarass people. Anyone who ever played the game should remember at least a couple of occasions where they were trying to run down a scout with a fighter or interceptor only to find themselves getting tossed around like a rag doll by a deployable mine pack that appears so suddenly there's no chance to avoid it in time. |
||
|
||
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Missile Targeting and *GASP* Mine Fields
could promote a more long range initial engagement, which I like...ala Robotech where you had fights of initial missile spam when two forces approached each other, then in close they would switch to guns.
/top gun: "Iceman, I am switching to guns...he is too close for missiles!" lol |
||
|
||
|
|
|
Re: Missile Targeting and *GASP* Mine Fields
I actually liked the PWD...and used it often as everyone probably knows. My setup for my Nix and Dragon both had PWDs on it. This was simply because I would get missile spammed the moment the fight broke out, even though I was not the most skilled pilot in the fleet, people assumed I was calling the targets (which I was).
About the mine fields...that could be interesting, especially setting them up near ambush sites and roid masking. |
||
|
||
|
|
|
Re: Missile Targeting and *GASP* Mine Fields
Quote:
ok for this I would certainly make some changes to the missiles themselves, in that I would have them have longer life spans over all in order for increased hit opportunities (them and us) and [speed matching +100V] speeds linked to the life span. So fire a missile at the 450v ship (flying straight) and the missile hones in at 550 for 1 min. Same missile type at a 540v (also straight flyer) ship = 640 for 40 secs. Slowing down, jigging, dosging and evasive flying where you slow down extends the missiles fly life (Actual speed/life algorithm needs input) |
||
|
||
|
|
|
Re: Missile Targeting and *GASP* Mine Fields
Hmm, well it depends on how fast-paced Jumpgate Evolution will be. It's not really a possbility with Jumpgate Live though. I mean, if you can pull it off, more power to you, but chances are the guy that just spammed you would be busy plugging holes in your ships' hull by the time you shot down the missile that's tracking you. Not to say it's not a good idea to make missiles destructable for just that reason, but seeing the opportunity to shoot one down is a very iffy proposition.
|
||
|
||
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|