DN 00.04.60 RCa

Discussion / Announcement area for Dark Nebulae Core development.
Gappy
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by Gappy »

Seeker 3 already requires starbase. People don't buy it that often because there isn't really a compelling reason to buy it. Dumbfires are better vs. bombers and miners. Quickfires are better Vs. nans. Seekers are best for fighter v. fighter, but the only time that's really useful is during con escort.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

i said change them to require adv sup or starbase.

i know they need starbase, i'm saying if you have adv sup, you shouldn't need to upp your gar to get seeker 3.

so you can get seeker 3 by having adv sup + gar or just by having a starbase.

quickfires suck people use entire racks on one target and they don't do as much damage as seekers, use seekers instead.

people keep buying qf 3, but seeker 3 is so much better, seeker 1 does more damage than qf 3.
seeker 3 is more cm resistant than qf 3, actually, every level of seeker is 0.10 more resistant to cms than the same level of qf.
seeker's lock radius is 2* that of qf
seekers turn radius is better than qfs
seeker 3 has a lock range of 1600, its like letting your figs mount hunters

the only things qfs have is the fast lock time, which isn't really that useful becauseits not about how fast you can fire missiles, its waiting til the right time to fire them. and given that 1cm effects all missiles currently in the air they are more easily stopped with cms
they do have the mass and acceleration which does help with their poorer turning compared to seekers.

but it doesnt change the fact that seeker 3 is much much better than qf 3 and a big improvement on seeker 2

but for some reason, people keep buying qf 3 and don't get seeker 3 even though we already have seeker 2.
so lowering the cost will help get it used more, and when it gets used more, the voobs who think qfs are awesome will learn that seeker wtf pwns them.

oh and did i mention that seeker 3 does 150% the damage of qf 3 ?
Last edited by madpeople on Thu May 31, 2007 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kap
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:20 am
Location: Mexico

Post by Kap »

I read about this when in cadet, since then I think I have never used quickfire again...
ImageImage
If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. -- Albert Einstein
AaronMoore
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: Australia

Post by AaronMoore »

Kap wrote:
QUOTE (Kap @ May 31 2007, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I read about this when in cadet, since then I think I have never used quickfire again...


hahaha, yes they are convincing us not to use them, but they sound soo cool!

It is true, these missiles are hardly ever used and it is a shame, but I just love the spam gunships can send of QFs


maybe these disadvantages could be reduced by allowing an additional QF to be mounted per rack?
Image
madpeople
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by madpeople »

they already mount 1 more qf than you can seeker / df.

they still suck, they are a voob trap, people thing key are cool because you fire a load of them off and you are too busy firing them off and spraying your gats randomly you don't notice that only one of them hit doing 40 dmg to the 750hp hvy int before you are podded...

so you ask your comm to get qf 3 because you just got owned "need better weapons"... "need better pilots!"
Ozricosis
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Post by Ozricosis »

I basically only use quickfires versus SFS while I am 95% of the time ALONE ON EFFING MINER DEFENSE. tongue.gif
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
HSharp
Posts: 5192
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Brum, UK

Post by HSharp »

QF is better against stealths and are great at de-probing/towering/podding (combat/anti-base pods, not eject). Also they work quite nicely in those situations where you know you arent going to be able to fire off a full rack(or two) of seekers or dumbs, and they look dammned cool when destroyers have them equipped.
Image
Image
Kltplzyxm
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:36 pm

Post by Kltplzyxm »

HSharp wrote:
QUOTE (HSharp @ May 31 2007, 01:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QF is better against stealths and are great at de-probing/towering/podding (combat/anti-base pods, not eject).

Stealths I can agree with but de-probing? Don't you have to fire at least 2 qfs to kill a prob outside of gun range? I tried it way back, and dfs/seekers do a better job.
TheBored
Posts: 4680
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:00 am
Location: At my desk staring at my monitor...

Post by TheBored »

1 QF kills a probe... I've gone deprobing in a GS before tongue.gif

TB
Image
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Nov 28 2008, 02:50 PM) All the retards are contained in one squad mostly (System X)
[18:48] <Imago> dont take me seriously
CronoDroid
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by CronoDroid »

You can deprobe with DF as long as you fire it within something like -80/+80 aspect from the probe. After all, it doesn't move. Don't try a 180 though.
Post Reply