EVE General Discussion

So I've been reading the same threads you all probably have, about qq's and ragequitting over the upcoming Heavy Missile nerfs in the upcomming Winter expansion. But that got me thinking: It's obvious that on some ships *cough* TENGU!!!! *cough* Heavy Missiles may be a tad bit more effective than most people would like. However, the upcoming changes are much too draconian and will effect more than just the problem ships, and could well make anything that previously used a heavy missile fit unviable for use in any scenario. So that got me thinking:

How do we change Missiles without causing them to be unviable?

So here's what I came up with:

Rule #1:

Missiles will have accuracy falloff:

Yes, I think that it's very possible that a missile could miss it's target through some form or another. Tracking could be disrupted in flight. A lucky laser shot could knock it off course. Even against slow-moving targets, missiles should have a chance to miss, like all other weapons.

Rule #2:

Missiles should have a damage falloff:

Again, I believe that this just makes sense. As the missile travels over time, eventually the force propelling it runs out, i.e., the missile runs out of propellant. Part of the damage the missile does is the force with which it hits, not just the pluming fireball. Though inertia will help to maintain the missile's strength, even in deep space, things are always effected by some sort of gravitational field. Over time that would slow the missile down, reducing it's effectiveness at range. Consequently, this could also mean that Missiles could get a buff at close range. Not to the level of Blasters, mind you, but it would mean that at close range, Caldari ships wouldn't be condemned to be swiss cheese on a Megathorn's blasters.

So for example:

Distance: 70-80 KM
Damage: 1/4 Normal Damage

Distance: 69-50 KM
Damage: 1/2 Normal Damage

Distance: 49-15 KM
Damage: Normal Damage

Distance: 14-6 KM
Damage: 2x Normal Damage

Distance: <6 KM
Damage: 4x Normal Damage



So, tell me if you guys thing these would be good alternative changes, and feel free to add-subtract anything.

Discuss:

wat

So your plan is to make them more like guns, but still with delayed damage, so they would be much worse at long ranges while being ridiculously OP at short ranges. Or alternatively somewhat balanced at close range and totally useless at long range because of the non-existant damage. How exactly would this be in any way better and balanced compared to the CCP proposed system?

The changes are fine, any decent Eve player will tell you it's about time this happened anyway.

The issue is blobs and pve where HMLs shine, slightly. Overall it's a bunch of whining when clearly turrets are still better in almost every aspect BUT Blobbing and PVE..

If anything they should get rid of the 10 second reload (make it 5), reduce the range, improve the speed, and take away the 2nd penalty that comes with the missiles..

Ships that use missile systems aren't even designed for these proposed TE and TC buffs.

Would prefer it if whining missile users would just rage quit.

Oh well, I guess it's all for the best ~

Give missiles a damage falloff? They already have one - it's called Max Flight Range. The damage falls off to ZERO outside that range.

I still don't see the issue with the changes.

I think we're better off just completely homogenizing the weapon systems.