Ships & Modules

OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.

Orrrr... We could wait until missile changes hit test and see where things actually stand. Given that we have no clue what TEs/TCs will do for missiles it's kind of hard to prescribe specific changes right now, isn't it?

Oh, and you're discounting flares, which do in fact help unguided missiles. It's only rigors that don't work.

Guided Missile Precision needs to apply to unguided missiles... this currently is the same as if Motion Prediction didn't apply to short range guns. It's silly.

Also, +5kms range on Torps seems reasonable.

Err ... the real reason is that 1/0.9 is greater than 1.1 ...and that explosion radius vs. sig radius determine the maximum damage you'll ever do to the target with a missile, even when the target is not moving at all.

There is no flaw here. Longer range turrets have better effective tracking than shorter range ones, since tracking is affected by range. If you were to balance missiles despite their "tracking" not being affected by range, you could do so by either making the close range OR the long range better at applying their damage, because in the end either can be justified quite easily.

That said, you do seem to ignore a few key factors in missile balancing:
DPS/range before bonuses (max skills, t1 ammo) of the 4 main large weapon types:

800mm AC II: 43 / 3km
Mega Pulse II: 48 / 15km
Neutron Blaster II: 59 / 4.5km
Torp launcher II: 62 / 20km

And I know from your other posts that you want to include falloff in range, which is fine, but then we also have to take into account the reduced damage from fighting in falloff (which averages out to full DPS at optimal, and half dps anywhere from optimal+1m to 2X falloff) so I'll throw those numbers out there, mostly because I'm bored:

Average DPS of each main BS weapon from 0 - optimal + 2X falloff:
800mm AC II: 23.7 / 51km
Mega Pulse II 34.3: / 35km
Neutron Blaster II: 33.85 / 30.5km
Torp launcher II: 62 / 20km

Less total range (though counting range as optimal+2X falloff is hilariously stupid to begin with) but MUCH more DPS applied. This also ignores damage types and cap use.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't just point out the flaws of a weapon system and claim that it's unbalanced because of that. All weapons have drawbacks, that's how they're supposed to be. If you want to show that something is underpowered, prove that it's ADVANTAGES are crap.


EDIT:

Trading damage application for raw DPS is arguably the most important aspect of balancing any weapon system in any game ever. This is working as intended.

So why buff torps instead of nerfing HAMs?

Hams themselves aren't bad, the reason they see little use is that heavies are hilariously OP.

I never mentioned that falloff should be discounted, but this:

Is just laughably stupid. Like that sort of post can get you kicked out of good pvp corps kind of stupid.

If you want to argue with numbers, then do it right. You can't base your entire argument on numbers and formulas, then just arbitrarily chalk something up as "an advantage" Especially not something as important as falloff mechanics.
Look back at the second set of numbers I posted. You want to buff torp range? Then they would need to nerf the damage to compensate, and if, for example, you wanted to bring it up to blaster levels, keeping it even on that graph would require the DPS on torps to be almost cut in half, for a ~50% range increase. (I really should point out that at this point this is mostly pointless number bickering, and in no way reflective of how the game is actually balanced, nor how I myself perceive it to be balanced)
The whole point of that second set of numbers is to show that yes, while torps have the lowest total range(though the highest optimal), they also have by FAR the most raw damage over that range, and trading range for damage is fine when it comes to weapon systems.
So, would you be willing to cut its damage in half in exchange for 50% more DPS?


I'm going to suggest you try a little experiment, since you seem unaware of the difference between tracking and effective tracking:

Grab a ship, toss some railguns and some blasters (or some pulses + beams or ACs + arty)
Have a friend orbit you at the optimal range in of the close range guns in an undersized ship, then have them orbit you at the optimal range of the long range gun. See which tracks better.

The difference here is that missile tracking doesn't get affected by range, so you could make an argument that missiles SHOULD track better at close range (looking at base tracking) or that they shouldn't (looking at effective tracking)

That said, I like how you completely ignored the bulk of my post to pick at one of the smaller points (and one that's irrelevant no less; even if you conclusively PROVE that, say, HAMs are underpowered compared to heavies, you would then need to prove that it's the HAMs that need changing, rather than the heavies (instead of making HAMs apply their DPS more easily, why not make HMs worse at applying their damage?)

But again, these are small points compared to the real issue at hand (that you can't just look at the drawbacks of a weapon to determine if it's OP, see my last post for more on that)

Oh and come back with a less scrubby KB if you're going to dismiss people for being alts

LAST EDIT:
Ideally if you want to show that a ship is underpowered this is the way you should be doing it:

Come up with a scenario in which the ship/weapon system in question SHOULD win. Prove that it loses. Show why this happens, and what can be done to fix it. Don't just spew out numbers, because numbers not lining up on a spreadsheet means nothing when it comes to game balance.

From my last post:


Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway?

Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post.

You haven't actually explained why any of this is BAD. All you're doing is making that claim that heavy assault missiles are worse than heavy missiles.

You know what? So are medium blasters, rails, pulses, beams, ACs and artillery, let's boost all of them \o/.

Needing webs to apply damage to targets is not a big deal, and is in no way indicative of HAMs needing a buff. You're also ignoring the other (MUCH more used) half of the medium weapon spectrum, namely BCs, to which you should have no problem applying full DPS.

I have stated several times that HAM's have poor damage applied.

I've have made my points clear on the top. Your lack of reading comprehension and logical understanding indicates that:

1. English is not your primary language.

2. You are a moron.

If you don't get it after I have clearly shown and stated why then you are dumb. Now if you want to talk more, then talk on your main. Otherwise I will not listen to some NPC noob.

Yes, I would agree with the premises you are saying. I believe that TC and TE will however not fix the fundamental flaws that remain with the missile systems. They will allevate those issues but the issues still remain. I believe a complete revamp is in order for all missile systems.