Talk:Weapons:Small: Difference between revisions
MarkMcDoogle (talk | contribs) m added weapons that are available, what'cha think? |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Charge Cannon == | |||
"By charging you also make the bolt fired larger and slower." That's not right, is it? No matter how charged it is, it's always the same speed, isn't it? - [[User:Beolach|Beolach]] | |||
---- | |||
It does get larger, but not slower. --[[User:Roguelazer|Roguelazer]] 06:06, 14 Mar 2005 (CST) | |||
== Flares == | |||
Damage/tube is gotten by multiplying the damage per rocket by the number of rockets in a tube. The original values were correct... --[[User:Roguelazer|Roguelazer]] 19:01, 20 March 2006 (EST) | |||
I felt it was more useful to display damage/tube, since damage/rocket is already present in the stats and damage/tube is a useful way of comparing them. Does nobody else care what the damage/tube is? --[[User:Roguelazer|Roguelazer]] 16:35, 9 April 2006 (EDT) | |||
Damage/tube isn't really a realistic number to compare rockets by, since rarely does one ever use a full tube of rockets on a single enemy(Exceptions being Hive, Capital ships, and pre-nerf Behemoth). One of the reasons one flies rockets is to end a fight as quickly as possible with as few hits as possible. In light of that, it's often better to have a set of rockets that have a high damage/rocket ratio, but a lower damage/tube ration(theoretically). Comparing two rockets by damage/tube is somewhat akin to comparing two cars by the amount of gas they can hold. --[[User:Calaihm|Steve]] | |||
== The whole cannon concept. == | |||
I don't exactly see the difference between "cannons" and, say, "blasters". They're all energy based, as opposed to ammo-based(Most rockets) and hybrids(Screamers and railguns come to mind), no? And, on that note, I'd like to set a motion for changing Blasters/Cannons/Guns/Missiles/Rockets to Unguided/Guided with the subsections Energy-based/Ammo-based/Hybrid in each as necessary to make it a bit more intuitive overall. --[[User:Calaihm|Steve]] | |||
I agree with Steve. The left hand Model column might get cluttered, but it would make a much more intuitive weapon selection process. When comparing the energy weapons I shouldn't have to jump around to 7 different tables. --[[User:calt|calt]] | |||
:Have to disagree. The page is a bit of a mess and needs reorganization desperately, but pretending there is no difference between Blasters and Cannon just makes weapon choice a murkier decision. Blasters sacrifice damage per shot to obtain a higher rate of fire, in some cases doing more damage in aggregate, whereas Cannon sacrifice rate of fire to obtain greater damage per shot. That's a useful distinction, like choosing between and agile weapon that will hit more often and a slower weapon that does more damage per strike (ex., a dagger or a two-handed sword). There are a number of statements on the page that are entirely subjective and largely untrue, like the statement that an Ion Blaster is "a better version" of a Plasma Cannon. I'm going to "fix" those statements now.[[User:Threndor Mendaris|Threndor Mendaris]] 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Speaking of cannons, is everything you said canon? ... --[[User:Pointsman|Pointsman]] 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Flechette Cannons == | |||
The bit about it firing multiple small projectiles per shot is incorrect, at least according to the game mechanics. It's just a rapid fire pellet gun. | |||
| | |||
Fixed [[User:NerdeVerde|NerdeVerde]] | |||
== Targetting, and the Corvus Widowmaker == | |||
Hi. How exactly did you determine the Targetting efficacy (Auto-aim) of each weapon as Okay, Good, Excellent ?{{br}} | |||
And, what auto-aim should we put on the Corvus Widowmaker? | |||
[[User:Foo Fighter|Foo Fighter]] 10:03, 19 November 2007 (EST) | |||