Thread: Ramming Damage
View Single Post
  #14  
Old February 3rd, 2003, 10:16 PM

couslee couslee is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 390
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
couslee is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Ramming Damage

Quote:
Originally posted by PvK:
The default values in settings.txt favor the target, not the rammer.

I think the main reason for this, and for making ramming warheads expensive and not very powerful is balance, and the fact that the ramming mechanic isn't very realistic or fair. Since the current mechanic makes it pretty easy to ram even faster ships (or drones or even FIGHTERS), ramming has to be disadvantaged some other way, or it will become a better strategy to build lots of ram ships than to invest in real weapons and sensors and stuff.

IMO, reducing the damage from ramming is a hack solution, but I also think it is far better than letting ram ships dominate. Ideally, the ramming mechanic would actually make sense. It wouldn't be automatically successful, and would be impossible or nearly impossible to ram faster or more maneuverable targets, especially fighters.

PvK
The only favorable thing for the target I read is shields work for the target, but not the attacker.
And considering the cost both mineral wise and KT used is balance enough IMO. A fleet of ramming ships would be very expensive to build.

The way I would mod the weapon is this (I know very little about modding, so don't go nutso if I say something that won't work):
Range: 1
Ability: may only be used once
Cost: maybe increase it 150%-200% (2000 minerals)
Mass: double it to 100kt
**damage resistance: leave at 50, or reduce to 20 or 25

If too powerfull, reduce the damage done from 100, 200, 300 per level to 75, 150, 225 (-25%).

Instead of veiwing it as a hard mount ramming warhead, view it as a detachable ramming warhead.

As it is now, they are useless. Why even have them in the game when you get better ramming numbers using cheap-*** armor.

**Late edit: lots of cross-posting and speedy replies.

[ February 03, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: couslee ]
__________________
It's all just a perspective of matter.
Reply With Quote