Eh, the tana isnt bad, but i wouldnt recommend sledges or mass drivers since they nerfed them, the NN-14s are way better right now both in DPS and raw alpha strike. and unless you are willing do lose 2 guns to fixed, the tana can only have 4xS2, same as the SH, and 2xS1, same as the SH. For all intents and purposes the tana is a cheap SH with way more missile power
Missile Choices 2
- Thread starter Shadow Reaper
- Start date
Dang I had never really followed the Tana (though I thought it was a cool looking ship). No idea that it was a viable fighter. I've been thinking of ditching my 85X, thinking I'll just upgrade it to Tana. Though I already have the Heartseeker for my 2-p dog fighter and Sentinel for 2-p long range. How does she stack up vs those 2? I know they're designed for slightly diff combat roles, but I'm intrigued with the stealthiness/low EM sig of the Tana vs the other 2.
Last edited:
I think they will fix the damage on the Sledge and Strife. People were complaining that they were doing a bonus 100% damage, but they were not. They were simply not suffering any damage mitigation from shields, just as they were intended to.
The heavy rail guns have crummy projectile speed, crummy range, crummy rate of fire, they're quite hot and take a lot of energy. They do far less DPS than other weapons. They have nothing going for them except that they pass through shields. Whatever dev decided to "fix" them, merely screwed them up; for they were working as intended. They're the hardest weapons to use in game and should do more damage than other weapons. If they don't put them back no one in their right mind is going to ever use them again. In particular, players were complaining that the Gladius had too much power with three gimbled S2 weapons doing fantastic damage, but they should do such damage. They're the hardest weapons to fly in game. The people who made these complaints were all laser pilots, who think it's normal to shoot at a player's shields for 2/3 of each battle, and that is just novice behavior.
The problem with putting Neutron Cannons in the Tana is that you lose all your stealth advantage. They use much more power than ballistics repeaters and they create substancially more heat, so you need to install a bigger reactor and cooler which adds to your EM and IR signatures and screws with your power management. The Tana is the stealthiest ship in game that I know, and I would not want to trade away that advantage for a few DPS. I sill think 6 Scorions is the way to go, and Sledges once they're fixed.
The more explosive the missile the better! Launch and forget... and if that doesn't work... full speed ramming.
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
What makes you think a mass driver, aka small rail gun should not have the same damage mitigation as a gatling gun or an auto-cannon?
Well lets compare the first two, a Strife against a Scorpion. The Scorpion does about 30% higher damage. It carries more than 3X the ammo. Its projectiles are almost 40% faster to target so will hit more often. It takes 50% longer to overheat. For all these deficits the Strife suffers by comparison, the only advatages of the Strife are that is has about 20% longer range and that its damage was not intended to be mitigated by shields. The point was supposed to be that suffering all these deficits, the railguns would make up for it with brute force, with a larger, heavier projectile that penetrates more deeply. If they don't put the Strife back to what it was, there are no reasons anyone would ever fly one again.
My experince on the various board was that the people who complained about the Strife damage were all flying energy weapons and didn't like how they compared to projectiles, but guess what--that's the cost of unlimited ammo. This is a case where the devs should not have listened to the feedback they were getting. it was bad feedback.
Given more than half the systems are not yet in place when dealing with damage types and even worse holes in the shields it seems the development staff weapon balancing at the moment is simply focused on the impact it has on Arena commander and not a real balance pass attempt.
I can see a mass driver having double or triple the penetrative value of a normal round, but not bypass shields completely. If you do that, you have any size mass drive weapons completely bypassing capital shields, that seems horribly unbalanced.
Make it double or triple the penetrative value, that way a shield that will negate 10% of a normal round, only negates 3-5% of a railgun round. This with the extended range will still have the weapon being viable.
Make it double or triple the penetrative value, that way a shield that will negate 10% of a normal round, only negates 3-5% of a railgun round. This with the extended range will still have the weapon being viable.
TBH IMO your loadout should change with your mission. Each tier of missile on every ship can do different things. If I'm in a fighter, looking for a dogfight, I'd want to go with size 3's and maybe some size 2's to give me more shots, you want the encounter to be over with asap. If I'm in say, an Andromeda and im running cargo or traveling, I'd want as many missiles as possible to just spray them and gtf away, which means you're probably going to have to step them down.
Just get a retaliator and a buddy flying escort and youll be good :P
Just get a retaliator and a buddy flying escort and youll be good :P
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
Where are you seeing the strife is designed to ignore shields?
Now you're asking a question about what was said years ago, and I'm sorry but I don't have an answer for you. You may recall though that several years ago, the intention was for all ballistics to penetrate shields 100% and that has been continually toned down. This latest evolution however throws game balance to the winds.
if you're willing to use a weapon with limited ammo, that is slower and harder to use, requires more energy and creates more heat, there needs to be a huge benefit or it's just a matter of time until it's no longer in the game.
The thing that is troubling is CIG appears to be following the complaints of one particular group, the energy weapon users. That's not good policy making. Additionally, we are not seeing the use of personal shields and how they affect FPS weapon selection. This is stuff that should have been balanced out by now, IMHO.
Understand, the Sledge was not doing 200% the damage of other weapons as many claimed. Not at all. It did far less damage than things like gattlings. It was just doing the vast majority of its damage to hull rather than the shields. If you just sprap and pray, you use energy weapons and of course you envy players who practice realistic trigger control.
if you're willing to use a weapon with limited ammo, that is slower and harder to use, requires more energy and creates more heat, there needs to be a huge benefit or it's just a matter of time until it's no longer in the game.
The thing that is troubling is CIG appears to be following the complaints of one particular group, the energy weapon users. That's not good policy making. Additionally, we are not seeing the use of personal shields and how they affect FPS weapon selection. This is stuff that should have been balanced out by now, IMHO.
Understand, the Sledge was not doing 200% the damage of other weapons as many claimed. Not at all. It did far less damage than things like gattlings. It was just doing the vast majority of its damage to hull rather than the shields. If you just sprap and pray, you use energy weapons and of course you envy players who practice realistic trigger control.
Last edited:
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
The round may be more massive, but it is also larger and slower. These factors lower penetration in the real world. The larger round gives the shields more surface area to slow.
The lower velocity gives the shields more time to slow the eound.
Just because a weapon exists that doesn't mean it is, or is supposed to be, viable.
Well let me ask, you do recognize that no one likes slow firing weapons? No one likes slow to target weapons. No one likes budgeting fantastic amounts of energy to weapons. No one likes their weapons overheating. So if you're willing to put up with all this, don't you think the benefit ought to be commensurate with the cost?
Personally I think all energy weapons ought to have huge energy cost and huge heating issues, but that's not what the players want. They want unlimited ammo. Hence why lasers and Neutrons have gotten so much more powerful and longer range over the years. BTW, Mechwarrior got all this right 25 years ago. There's no excuse screwing it all up now.
Personally I think all energy weapons ought to have huge energy cost and huge heating issues, but that's not what the players want. They want unlimited ammo. Hence why lasers and Neutrons have gotten so much more powerful and longer range over the years. BTW, Mechwarrior got all this right 25 years ago. There's no excuse screwing it all up now.
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
No. For example, the M70 is a slow firing weapon with a much smaller magazine compared to the M16 or M249. The M70 has a lower distribution rate in the US Army than the M249 but each serve their purpose.
Again, just because a weapon exists, that does not mean it is, or should be, equal or better.
Note that a 20% range difference is enough to differentiate it.
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
I never saw anywhere that ballistics were to completely ignore shields, just that they would have better shield penetration.
A weapon that ignores shields throws game balance out the window. Why would you ever use a weapon that doesn't ignore shields, when there is one that does? Especially when there are ships like the Sabre that are heavy shield low armor.
There are other issues too. It really should not be the case you can fire all you missiles at once. If you have 4 racks and/or launchers, firing 4 missiles at once makes sense, but firing missiles that are internal, and waiting behind other missiles makes no sense at all. Because they allow this, people have taken to spamming S1s, and that's really not how they should work, IMHO. Likewise I think the missile ranges are all fubar. Each size missile ought to have greater range and last I looked the S5s were identical to S3s.
Likewise they nerfed the missile lock system that was supposed to be proprietary to the Vanguard, and offered faster missile lock times than other ships. Now the lock times are all a function of the missile.
On the guns though, my contention has always been that the gimble assist is great, but there needs to be a huge benefit for firing fixed if you can aim them. If someone is good enough that they can fly a fixed S5 on a Vanguard chin, that is slow to fire, slow speed to target, and they can hit light fighters, that ought to be a one-shot kill, IMHO. The Deadbolt 5 overheats after 1 second of fire--that's every shot! If you can hit a small fighter with a weapon like that you deserve a medal just for that.
Likewise they nerfed the missile lock system that was supposed to be proprietary to the Vanguard, and offered faster missile lock times than other ships. Now the lock times are all a function of the missile.
On the guns though, my contention has always been that the gimble assist is great, but there needs to be a huge benefit for firing fixed if you can aim them. If someone is good enough that they can fly a fixed S5 on a Vanguard chin, that is slow to fire, slow speed to target, and they can hit light fighters, that ought to be a one-shot kill, IMHO. The Deadbolt 5 overheats after 1 second of fire--that's every shot! If you can hit a small fighter with a weapon like that you deserve a medal just for that.
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
There are two ways to accomplish a fire them all at once, from a practical point of view.
1. The ship, not the seeker head needs to see the target and the data is passed to the missile.
2. Staggered time for the missiles to light their engines.
Combine the two and the Retaliator should be able to easily put a 6 missile TOT strike in space (The Eclipse 3). With 1 the Gladiator should be able to fire everything. (Limited to control links.) With 2 the Harbinger should be able to put them all on target.
Lets go a step further. If the ship, not the seeker head needs to see the target and the ship has enough control links, then a single Retaliator should be able to launch a Squadron (Or larger) time on target strike.
Why would you want to fire all the missiles at once? One word, Idris.
Last edited:
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
But I already have a Retaliator, and I belong to Test so crew and escorts shouldn't be an issue.