Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I have a concern...

While missile velocity is tied to range, it's more relevant to consider it the same as tracking.
I say this because low base velocity means inability to hit small, fast moving targets.

MDs effecting flight time as well as velocity means that they are reducing your range, as well as reducing your relative "tracking".

It's a bit different for exp velocity and radius, but is still problematic.
By effecting exp velocity, you're effecting my ability to hit moving targets.
By reducing exp radius, you're effecting my ability to hit the broad side of a barn, which is already an issue with some missile systems.

I personally think that MDs should effect ONLY flight time and exp velocity.
Now, if they're scripted for flight time, they have to be outside of a certain range, instead of using it to kite your missiles.
With exp velocity script, you're effectively reducing your ability to hit moving targets, while not effecting your ability to hit stationary targets.

I personally believe this is the best coarse of action.
With TD scripted for tracking, you reduce the ability to hit moving targets, with no effect on stationary targets.
With script for optimal/falloff, you're reducing range without effecting tracking.

Does anyone else see the unequal variation here?

Thing is, CCP puts these threads up in order to get feedback, as there are a lot more heads that could potentially come up with concerns that the staff/team at CCP may have overlooked.

When you create a thread with 20+ pages of feedback, mostly stating the issues with the design, you'd think they would consider that, being the reasoning for the thread in the first place.

If they're not going to consider player input, then why ask for feedback, or an open thread?
Hell, why even mention it before it goes active?

We players stated the concerns with MGCs and MGEs, it went ignored by CCP. Now they are making changes.
We spoke of the issues with several ships that have been rebalanced before release, now they have gone back and changed some, and have more left..

It seems like a recurring theme here..
Suggest a change/addition, players express concerns, CCP pushes plan, issues expressed by player occur, CCP reverts/modifies several months later. If there are any concerns with the new iterations, repeat process...

There have been a few cases where they have modified a change before pushing live, but it seems that these situations boil down to very obvious oversights that attention is brought to.
If the issue isn't "that" blatantly obvious to CCP, they'll ignore cries of foul, until the issue has broken the live server..

IE, said ship is OP. Players state issue before release, CCP pushes release, players take advantage of the issue in order to overpower others for the sake of SOV, KMs,'tears, cheers, and rage quits.
After several months of this, CCP comes back and says "oops" and makes changes, yet all of the loss that occured during the process is not covered, despite the players having informed them of the issue before implementation.

So, it's there bad for not listening to the players, but it's your bad for any losses accrued due to said issue.

When do we get to see the actual module stats for these?

Can't imagine they are coming in a weeks time when there doesn't even seem to be hardly any info out for them.

I'd expect to see them on sisi by now, or at the least have the module stats in this thread.

While I presume stuff like fitting, cap use, range, etc, are all the same as the turret counterparts, would be nice to know.

They're still not on SiSi yet?!

If you're adding tracking distruption and ewar against missiles, you need to take a look at some ship bonuses.
For example all turret ships get bonus to damage, missile ships normally don't get bonus to damage, because right of now missiles couldn't get disrupted.

Example:
1. Kronos gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage
2. Vargur gets 8 Turrets + 33% Damage (25% ROF)
3. Tempest gets 6 Turrets + 25% Damage + 49.5% Damage (37.5% ROF) which gets you 11.2125 turrets
4. Abaddon gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage
5. Paladin gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage


6. Golem gets 8 Launchers, no Damage bonus
7. Raven gets 8 Launchers
8. Raven Navy Issue gets 8 Launchers

It looks a lot like this is following the same course as the Missile Guidance modules, which comes down to no or very little testing, cheap copy past trick on the turret modules, resulting in, messy blue prints asking for the same materials as e turret version.

followed some hidden nerf on missiles them self, followed by a deafening silence from defs.






While excellent points things run deeper than that, the guidance modules, being cheap copy pastes, from their turret counterparts are rather expensive on the CPU front, which ways heavy on the missile shield ships that already need a lot of CPU.




No problem, as long as they take the same base damage as missiles, lose critical hits, clip size and reload time.

Cap Warfare was the first ewar to get "touched" by module tiercide. So, without further info brought out, I am guessing this all ties into a full blown e-war rebalance.

there should be an active intention too nerf there strength, just another reason why drones are dominant is all the easy ways too nerf turrets and now missiles into uselessness.

The real problem is that CCP Devs dont play the game everyday. And have no clue on whats good or bad. They listen to noobs that have been playing for 2 months and forget about peeps that have been in game for years. CCP wake up your killing this game with your GAME MECHANIC fixes!!! stop changing stuff to act like real world and precision missiles and fall off and that kind of stuff. YOUR killing this game and not fixing the stuff that really matters instead of add new features and Heck with problems. WAKE UP!

Trol troll trolllll