The Kol gets a lot of flak but seriously, what does it need to reasonably keep up with the other capitals now that Rebellion is out?
More AM to keep it's abilities going? Higher scaling GRG? Fuzzy dice?
Yes, why people can't just think in simple terms...
If GRG's secondary effect is to be changed, it'll still need some antimatter improvements to be able to use that and flak without a supporting level-6 dunov. Even then, I don't think a simple passive health regen disable will make the Kol enough of a thorn in your side to simply not ignore in favor of other targets, which makes all its durability fairly useless. The ability of the other battleships to severely cripple antimatter reserves requires that you not ignore them in a fight, while the Kol, even with a regen disable, would not demand any such attention.
Also, while this is mostly personal taste, I've never liked how vasari-specific AFF is.
It's actually good against all factions with the 15-40% damage reduction. It just puts Vasari in line with the other factions in terms of the damage the Kol receives.
If it's passive the HasShieldMeshEffect needs removed
Also if GRG reduced Armor then it would synergize fairly well with focus fire from frigates. Bring in a Celio with Designate target and you could do even better damage.
To differentiate GRG I'd have the armor debuff as a stacking modifier so multiple shots from the same or Multiple Kols would start to add up. Maybe something like 1/1.5/2/2.5 and can stack up to 4 times.
Quick question. Why would you guys prefer the AFF to be passive instead of say, reducing the AM cost of the Kol's abilities and/or increasing the AM reserves of the battleship?
Just curious.
I like the idea of the Kol's GRG taking armor point off, like the Egg's nanite eating blob (I think this is why they didn't, because they essentially decided to put that ability on the Jarrasul). Static Gauss guns have that ability already (Meson Bolt), it would make since for the Kol's Gauss to so have as well.
That GRG would affect armor makes absolutely no sense...why does a fast moving projectile affect your armor?? I understand a penalty to speed or weapon cooldown if you assume GRG targets a specific subsystem....I understand shield mitigation (which the TEC have no way of reducing) because GRG always hits shields...the armor debuff just makes no sense...
If a TEC ability schould have an armor debuff, it should be incendiary shells...they are incendiary, they burn armor, that is what they do...
AFF being passive is preferred because it does nothing for the fleet surrounding the Kol. It only assists the Kol.
Aside from not making sense, the armor debuff would be redundant with the Meson Bolt ability of Gauss Turrets.
As for Incendiary shells, in RR, I made it reduce healing to the afflicted ship.
I think that is also fairly legit (though you already know why I don't like it on incendiary)...did you disable all passive regen though or just hull and/or shields?
I made GRG disable all regen.
Ok, this reply is retarded. The missile defense fucking rail gun does a similar debuff.
Scattershot? That also is retarded...but it hadn't been brought up yet...
You have to understand, when I talk about how I want abilities to be changed, I usually consider the other changes I also want...and as far as I'm concerned, scattershot (which seems just like flak burst on crack) shouldn't affect armor....
For the record, I want:
Ok, fine. I'm not happy with the TRT ability AOE ability set. but saying GRG impacting armor doesn't make any sense goes against what the missile defense "Rail Gun" already does. I personally think the TRT is the strongest titan in the game at the moment followed by the VRT and then ART. The VRT is hard to judge still due to the banning.
Well, it depends, I'd say...
Early game, TRT definitely....but late game, coronata + fleet is probably hardest nut to crack....I'm not sure how I feel about the VL titan, don't have enough experience with it...VR titan is a beast, not the strongest early game only because of snipe, but late game I'd say it and eradica are up there vying for 2nd...
LOL. Aren't any of you military fans?
Incendiary is the WORST thing against armor. Regular shot is better for pete's sake. Metal melts a high temperature. Incendiary was not all that great against Germany in WWII, but spectacular against Japanese cities, because they used to much wooden construction. Incendiary spreads fire. Metal no burn so well.
The minus armor effect is trying to mimic an armor-piercing round (for those who don't know, a round that has a timer and penetrates before exploding, instead of on contact).
Incendiary would work against armor, if it is a armor piercing round and your aiming for fuel/warhead. Big boom then.
Sometimes when you see "incendiary" it is actually what ignites the main warhead, and gives a sort of secondary effect that may be effective depending on the target.
From Wikipedia, under the heading "Incendiary Ammo":
"Incendiary projectiles, in particular those intended for armor penetration, are more effective if they explode after penetrating a surface layer, such that they explode inside the target. Additionally, targets with onboard electronics or computers can be damaged by metal fragments when they explode on the surface. Ignition is often delayed by varying means until after impact."
I don't show this to demonstrate certain qualities of incendiaries...I show this to indicate that HEIs are recognized to fall under the broader term "Incendiary" even though not all incendiaries are capable of piercing armor...additionally, some incendiaries have reached temperatures in excess of most metals' melting point (though inability to maintain that temperature is why they don't melt or "burn" metals)...for example, the RAUFUS Mk 221 can get to temperatures of several thousand degrees Fahrenheit....
That being said, this is a game set in the future...ships will have armors thicker and stronger than what we have today so "armor piercing" may not be viable for most projectiles (GRG and Snipe could be exceptions to this rule)...additionally, the shells are huge, and could easily carry a large amount of chemicals that would burn through armor...
It's the future...who's to say they won't have shells that can maintain the high temperatures to eat through metal? We already have chemicals used to burn through metal, it's just that it is far more effective to go through the armor and blow up the "softer" stuff inside with an HEI....but what if you can't penetrate the armor? Well, then eating through it or weakening it with chemicals now becomes a good idea...
Yes sometimes shells fall under "incendiary" while that is actually an armor piercing round. The warhead of the armor-piercing round is incendiary. I mentioned this.
I will point out that sins is not a realistic picture of the future in any way....but we all know this.
Armor will not be tougher/thicker! Not for a long, long time. It will be thinner and weaker, because the mass overwhelmingly adversely effects acceleration. I don't care how thick your armor is, one thermonuke and your history. One relativistic weapon hit and you have serious damage. "Armor" in future spacecraft will more likely take the form of Whipple shields and thin layers of particular materials to counter gamma rays, particle weapons, etc. Not at all like a tank or battleship of today (there is a reason no one has battleships any more....).
Additionally the rounds would be small and many not few and large. A relativistic weapon for instance, a gram of matter will slam into a ship with as much power as a gram of matter/antimatter coming into contact with the ship. Which is of course, as powerful as you can get. Leave the chemicals at home please.
Coilgun and Railguns (Gauss is a coilgun) are actually hyper-velocity weapons (unless they fire missiles that can continue to accelerated past 14% c), but still the same principle applies. A solid shot would always deliver more energy then any warhead other then nuclear. There will be no "incendiary" warheads. Super absurd when you realize how much heat dissipates in space.
Coming back to the "sins" universe, you could pairing incendiary & armor piercing is what? Armor piercing can be accomplished as -1 armor (or however much, Meson Bolt does 3 I think), while the incendiary on the Marza merely does a constant damage effect, like a fire continuing to burn.
Even the good Wiki points out that the idea of the Incendiary isn't to destroy the armor, but the soft stuff inside that armor! Incendiary may well be hot enough to melt metal. But that kind of power is far better spend on penetrating with something else. Like I mentioned above, at a certain point, sheer speed means you turn matter into heat far more powerfully then any flamethrower, so to speak.
Hope you are not offended by my rantings.
If it helps, think of "incendiary" as space slang for a special warhead that that rips apart whatever they use for armor at a sub-atomic level (slowly). You don't think they're really using fire like a bunch of cave men do you?
The main point is that Sel's previous comment of why "the Gauss doesn't make sense using minus armor" makes perfect sense in the way sins is set up. So does the way they use the Incendiary on the Marza.
I believe it would be a good effect for the Kol to have, fits with it's battleship role (that of 1 vrs 1 hostile cap, the battleship wins) plus decent fleet support, plus decent ability for the TEC to have. The Gauss gun / Kol might be redundant, but not overly so since the gun is not heavily used in most multiplayer, even less so for the Meson bolt, and is a defensive structure instead of a ship. Still I am not against other ideas.
As for the above quote, in reality, of course is ridiculous in the light of other options. In the sins universe, it makes more sense for "incendiary" to do a damage per second effect (as the Marza) and armor piercing to do a armor debuff. It would not make sense for incendiary to debuff armor, as more armor would make incendiary less effective. The devs got this exactly right, though we can argue for the number crunching balance or for a different ability/secondary effect.
Not buying this...I think it's safe to assume the future will bring stronger/lighter materials so I see no reason why a combat space ship set centuries into the future can't have stronger armor than a 21st century tank...maybe not physically thicker, but definitely stronger and able to resist more...
Nuclear weapons (and really any non-pentrating explosive) aren't nearly as effective in space...I'm not saying they won't hurt, but I think you are grossly overestimating their effectiveness...from a realistic point of view, any missile is going to be easy to shoot down or disrupt, and nuclear missiles (which likely will be larger) would only be easier to defend against...from a "Sins" point of view, all LRM missiles are nuclear, yet somehow every ship in the game manages to take lots of shots just fine...one thermonuke in Sins hardly dents a trade ship...
I highly doubt "autocannons" are relativistic weapons, and those are the weapons that incendiary shells is tied to...anyway it doesn't matter, your quoted number of 14% is hardly relativistic (you are talking less than a 2% difference from classical values)...
Let's just say these are the "amors" used by ships in sins, ones that are really good at absorbing pure kinetic energy and energy based weapons....seems to me like the perfect time to use something different such as chemicals...it is not about raw energy, whipple shields are a great example of that...they are specifically designed to deal with one type of weapon...guided missiles of lower energy will easily be more effective against whipple shields than kinetic weapons of higher energy...and, a slow moving projectile loaded to react with metal seems like a fine counter to a whipple shield...
Never said warheads...name of ability is "Incendiary shells"...and you are kidding me if you don't think you can't fit lots of chemicals in a shell shot by a giant space ship...handhelds can shoot incendiary shells (though that's not really the kind of incendiary we want)....naval ships could, they just don't because at this time we have no problem penetrating the armor of anything so why bother...pick any decent sized round on a naval ship these days, and I'm sure you could engineer it to fit lots of chemicals if you wanted to....
As a thermal sidenote, it's not like you are making a fire here, you are starting a reaction that releases tremendous amounts of heat...and actually, heat dissipation occurs more in an atmosphere than in space....in an atmosphere, you have both blackbody radiation and conduction....in space, you only have radiation....aside from pressure issues and oxygen, you'd actually keep warm better in space than you would in Antarctica...even if this weren't the case, I think its fair to say the incendiary rounds will penetrate to some degree even if they don't break through...so, you have a reaction occuring well inside the ships armor, not on the surface exposed to space....
As a super lame example, I see no reason why you couldn't make some nice shells that initiate a thermite reaction after lodging themselves into the armor...and I'm sure the future could easily bring all the technology necessarily to make more violent reactions to deal with stronger materials...
This makes absolutely no sense...something that pierces armor reduces armor? If you punch a small hole in a ships armor (say, with GRG or Meson Bolt), you have done nothing to the rest of the ships armor...especially if you assume that the armor is meant to dissipate kinetic energy, you can't even get away with a "well it probably damaged the superstructure of the ship" (which to me seems more like more raw damage, hull damage, or debuff to hull repair)...sure, you've done damage, but how does piercing through the armor in one place make it universally weaker to successive attacks? Compare that to nanites or a series of metal-eating chemicals hitting the ships in many places...now that makes sense why such an attack of that nature would affect the ship's armor...
FYI, meson bolt is a stream of subatomic particles...unlike GRG, snipe, and gauss weapons in general (Ragnarov and TEC defense platforms), the energy delivered by meson bolt is relativistic so I suppose one could argue one shot of those might damage the superstructure more and blah blah blah ships is more susceptible to future attacks....
To be honest though I don't like meson bolt reducing armor either for the same reason I don't like GRG reducing armor...armor piercing rounds penetrate the armor but they don't make the armor inneffective...shoot an armor piercing round at a tank, and you have one pretty bullet hole...start melting the tanks armor, and now normal rounds are going to be able to get through...
Well, mesons can decay into electrons and photons, both of which could do all sorts of funkiness to ships.
This is true, but of little consequence to the fact that no vast amount of armor will save you. Current weapons, not to mention future, easily penetrate such measures.
Quoting CoronalFire, reply 66I don't care how thick your armor is, one thermonuke and your history.Nuclear weapons (and really any non-pentrating explosive) aren't nearly as effective in space...I'm not saying they won't hurt, but I think you are grossly overestimating their effectiveness...from a realistic point of view, any missile is going to be easy to shoot down or disrupt, and nuclear missiles (which likely will be larger) would only be easier to defend against...from a "Sins" point of view, all LRM missiles are nuclear, yet somehow every ship in the game manages to take lots of shots just fine...one thermonuke in Sins hardly dents a trade ship...
No, missiles will not be easy to intercept. Nukes can come in small packages, already small enough to fit in 155mm rounds. That is not a problem. Yes sins has nuclear weapon that don't do much damage. However just ask the devs this is hardly realistic, it is instead fun play.Quoting CoronalFire, reply 66Additionally the rounds would be small and many not few and large. A relativistic weapon for instance, a gram of matter will slam into a ship with as much power as a gram of matter/antimatter coming into contact with the ship. Which is of course, as powerful as you can get. Leave the chemicals at home please.I highly doubt "autocannons" are relativistic weapons, and those are the weapons that incendiary shells is tied to...anyway it doesn't matter, your quoted number of 14% is hardly relativistic (you are talking less than a 2% difference from classical values)...
It is relativistic. Autocannons would not be true. Again sins is hardly realistic. Any "autocannons" used in stellar combat would probably be a point defense system.Quoting CoronalFire, reply 66"Armor" in future spacecraft will more likely take the form of Whipple shields and thin layers of particular materials to counter gamma rays, particle weapons, etc. Not at all like a tank or battleship of today (there is a reason no one has battleships any more....).Let's just say these are the "amors" used by ships in sins, ones that are really good at absorbing pure kinetic energy and energy based weapons....seems to me like the perfect time to use something different such as chemicals...it is not about raw energy, whipple shields are a great example of that...they are specifically designed to deal with one type of weapon...guided missiles of lower energy will easily be more effective against whipple shields than kinetic weapons of higher energy...and, a slow moving projectile loaded to react with metal seems like a fine counter to a whipple shield...
I don't dispute missiles being effective. They are. The problem with guns is they are unguided, and a ship maneuvers a hair and in the vast distance of space this becomes miles as far as accuracy goes. The slower the projectile, the less accurate it is.Quoting CoronalFire, reply 66There will be no "incendiary" warheads. Super absurd when you realize how much heat dissipates in space.Never said warheads...name of ability is "Incendiary shells"...and you are kidding me if you don't think you can't fit lots of chemicals in a shell shot by a giant space ship...handhelds can shoot incendiary shells (though that's not really the kind of incendiary we want)....naval ships could, they just don't because at this time we have no problem penetrating the armor of anything so why bother...pick any decent sized round on a naval ship these days, and I'm sure you could engineer it to fit lots of chemicals if you wanted to....
It's not a question of fitting chemicals in. I agree there's no problem in fitting something in a 155mm round. The question is does this give you more bang then a solid 155mm round. The answer is always the solid shot, except for nuclear. Below is a very exaggerated example of what I am talking about, from wiki:
"A 1 kg mass traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT or approximately 32 megatons more than the theoretical max yield of the tsar bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. 1 kg of mass-energy is 8.99×1016 joules or about 21.5 megatons of TNT."
In other words there comes a point when it is better to use all your energy propelling a solid shot instead of a warhead.As a thermal sidenote, it's not like you are making a fire here, you are starting a reaction that releases tremendous amounts of heat...and actually, heat dissipation occurs more in an atmosphere than in space....in an atmosphere, you have both blackbody radiation and conduction....in space, you only have radiation....aside from pressure issues and oxygen, you'd actually keep warm better in space than you would in Antarctica...even if this weren't the case, I think its fair to say the incendiary rounds will penetrate to some degree even if they don't break through...so, you have a reaction occuring well inside the ships armor, not on the surface exposed to space....
Except there is nothing to burn. Any decent fire suppressant would involve a vacuum. Now all your left with is heat, and a solid shot impact generates quite a bit of that. The thing with Antartica is that the heat is transferred to more air instead of the same air. Incendiary would die quickly in space, a brief flash of heat not a overwhelming fire. Sure you might melt a little bit of armor, but you would have melted more with a high speed shot.As a super lame example, I see no reason why you couldn't make some nice shells that initiate a thermite reaction after lodging themselves into the armor...and I'm sure the future could easily bring all the technology necessarily to make more violent reactions to deal with stronger materials...
Is that a troll post?Quoting CoronalFire, reply 68As for the above quote, in reality, of course is ridiculous in the light of other options. In the sins universe, it makes more sense for "incendiary" to do a damage per second effect (as the Marza) and armor piercing to do a armor debuff. It would not make sense for incendiary to debuff armor, as more armor would make incendiary less effective. The devs got this exactly right, though we can argue for the number crunching balance or for a different ability/secondary effect.This makes absolutely no sense...something that pierces armor reduces armor? If you punch a small hole in a ships armor (say, with GRG or Meson Bolt), you have done nothing to the rest of the ships armor...especially if you assume that the armor is meant to dissipate kinetic energy, you can't even get away with a "well it probably damaged the superstructure of the ship" (which to me seems more like more raw damage, hull damage, or debuff to hull repair)...sure, you've done damage, but how does piercing through the armor in one place make it universally weaker to successive attacks? Compare that to nanites or a series of metal-eating chemicals hitting the ships in many places...now that makes sense why such an attack of that nature would affect the ship's armor...
True, the armor debuff doesn't follow the "armor piercing" line perfectly. It would be more like "now everyone who fires at the ship is now using armor piercing." Sins isn't about realism, but for a semi-plausable jargon for gameplay. Don't get me started on the implausibility of using nanites as a warhead either, it's even more ludicrous.FYI, meson bolt is a stream of subatomic particles...unlike GRG, snipe, and gauss weapons in general (Ragnarov and TEC defense platforms), the energy delivered by meson bolt is relativistic so I suppose one could argue one shot of those might damage the superstructure more and blah blah blah ships is more susceptible to future attacks....
Actually Meson can (theoretically) penetrate a planet even. Though in gameplay, this is more like the previous "now everyone is using armor piercing" since the effect is passed on to every ship who now fires at the target. Regardless, this is still so far more realistic then the rest it's hysterical if you were concerned with realism....
No but armor piercing bypasses armor to an extent. That is way it takes -3 instead of taking it all. More armor is still better, but it is like a negative shield mitigation effect for hull. And I guarantee you there is better ways of taking out a tank besides a really large and hot flamethrower.
About nuclear weapons, I know they are "less effective" in space. For one, all your going to kill is one ship. They still remain, however, the only type of warhead still worth bothering about besides solid shot. In space, the only conventional warhead you will have is the type to scatter solid shot!
You need more proof, look it up. The U.S. Railguns soon to be aboard Navy ships will have no warhead, yet have comparable power of a Tomahawk Cruise Missile which has a 1,000lbs warhead.
From wiki:
Railguns are being researched as weapons with projectiles that do not contain explosives, but are given extremely high velocities: 3,500 m/s (11,500 ft/s, approximately Mach 10 at sea level) or more (for comparison, the M16 rifle has a muzzle speed of 930 m/s, or 3,050 ft/s), which would make their kinetic energy equal or superior to the energy yield of an explosive-filled shell of greater mass. This would decrease ammunition size and weight, allowing more ammunition to be carried and eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives in a tank or naval weapons platform. Also, by firing at greater velocities, railguns have greater range, less bullet drop, faster time on target and less wind drift, bypassing the physical limitations of conventional firearms, "the limits of gas expansion prohibit launching an unassisted projectile to velocities greater than about 1.5 km/s and ranges of more than 50 miles [80 km] from a practical conventional gun system."[18]
That bit about not having explosives is great news for damage control teams. Ammo stores get hit? Ah well it didn't do anything.
Sorry for the long post. Do I really need to continue with this?
http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/kinetic.php
Please stop with the nerd arguing.
I have been exposed!
I really hope Volt knows the truth about this and is just to scared of Sel to speak the truth.... *whispers* just watch Sel I'll get him roped into this yet!
Edit: He does know! I've used that Calc Volt. I've done a lot of research on future space weaponry, trust me incendairy isn't there except for planet-side use.
Ugh.. I'm going to say that while I would say that traditional incendiary weapons isn't going to do squat in space against sci-fi hulls or shields, who knows what the sci-fi ones on the Marza do. Neither of you write lore, so please agree to disagree.
TP
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
