These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#2781 - 2013-12-06 21:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
You can switch over to gunnery and including support skills train up a gun type and loose no speed over finishing missile skills past 70% or more percent completed. Missiles are THAT fubar and skill intensive to boot.

I noticed that the gunnery stuff seems to train a lot quicker.


Lol I misspelled lose. yes it is immense a difference in effective training requirement. 36x multiplier total for missile support+target painting. Vs 18x for gunnery, 16 times for projectiles. This doesn't even include the fact you can skip out of falloff skills for lasers and hybrids with little problem. Vice versa "Sharpshooter" optimal skill can be taken to lvl 4 and left there for projectiles.
Whereas the force multiplier for missile support skills is much higher percentage-wise and downright essential. Range skills+tracking sticking out head and shoulder. And all that for 1 (sad) weapons-ystem vs 3. Ohh not to mention you have double the skill requirements for medium small and heavy, short and long range techII requirements.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2782 - 2013-12-06 21:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
You can switch over to gunnery and including support skills train up a gun type and loose no speed over finishing missile skills past 70% or more percent completed. Missiles are THAT fubar and skill intensive to boot.

I noticed that the gunnery stuff seems to train a lot quicker.


Lol I misspelled lose. yes it is immense a difference in effective training requirement. 36x multiplier total for missile support+target painting. Vs 18x for gunnery, 16 times for projectiles. This doesn't even include the fact you can skip out of falloff skills for lasers and hybrids with little problem. Vice versa "Sharpshooter" optimal skill can be taken to lvl 4 and left there for projectiles.
Whereas the force multiplier for missile support skills is much higher percentage-wise and downright essential. Range skills+tracking sticking out head and shoulder. And all that for 1 (sad) weapons-ystem vs 3. Ohh not to mention you have double the skill requirements for medium small and heavy, short and long range techII requirements.

When you compare the SP investments to the effectiveness, there is really no reason to train Missiles anymore. You are better off with Lasers, Hybrids, Projectiles or even drones. I highly doubt anyone that has skills and experience in all five systems will disagree.

Edit: The only advantage missiles still have is that they are easier to use than turrets for newbies. Since you don't have to worry about the optimal-falloff ranges. However, that really don't matter. Since the damage application is garbage.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#2783 - 2013-12-06 22:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:

When you compare the SP investments to the effectiveness, there is really no reason to train Missiles anymore. You are better off with Lasers, Hybrids, Projectiles or even drones. I highly doubt anyone that has skills and experience in all five systems will disagree.

Edit: The only advantage missiles still have is that they are easier to use than turrets for newbies. Since you don't have to worry about the optimal-falloff ranges. However, that really don't matter. Since the damage application is garbage.


Yeah, I think it's a glaring issue, I don't want to bump my own thread though, but expected there to be more interest. I wanted to make a newbie guide for SP allocation. (not going to turn every newb into an SP natzi). But to give an indication to them of what to expect. Or what to train for if they are SP optimizing neurotics like me.
I would advise a newb in this day and age to go for drones and then gunnery after. (I just don't know where to post it or anything).

I myself have just about finished cruise missiles and that is only for my rattlesnake, at this point I would vow to fill all my high slots with neuts for lvl4 missions if I could get those SP points back. Little over 2,5 months worth of training time.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2784 - 2013-12-06 22:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
So medium size missiles are in good shape but somehow people are choosing turrets over missiles now perhaps more than ever? Okay, seems legit.


I didn't say they were in good shape. They need tweaking. I've mentioned that several times already. But they are affected far more on how you fit than turrets for application. You could easily adjust above fittings to gain more tank and lose application on frigates but still apply respectable dps to cruiser sized targets. If you're wanting an op pwnmobile, thats max tank and gank and no application, then you're going to be disappointed.

Still think most are missing the point, missiles hit everytime, you can only outrun missiles or maybe kill them with SB or use defenders (lol) which no one has really touched on. Those systems could use some tweaking as well. So if you fit for more application, you will always be applying some form of dps. If HML are buffed too much, then they'll swing over into being op again because then you can reduce application rigs and modules and have more tank.

Buff hm dmg and application, introduce module to disrupt missiles would be ideal. I was thinking either incorporate the effect into afterburners or make a new utility high slot that affects explosion raduis/velocity that functions like a SB. Give it a slightly longer cycle time so you can still occasionly get good hits inbetween cycle times of said module. That way missile users aren't completely nuetered if they get into a fight with a ship that has one. We could call it chaff, and maybe even consumes charges? Like 20 charges and then a 10-20 second reload? You load it with scrap metal or some new charge. Functioning similar to defenders but u need only one module. It doesn't kill the missile just lowers application. The high slot then gives the choice of a nuet/nos or missile defense.

Sorry for any double post.

It doesn't matter if the missiles hit for 10% or less of their theoretical damage. Weapons are meant to kill with efficiency. So the damage over time analogy you are using is complete horse-****. That works fine with games that are similar to WoW. However, that is not Eve. Furthermore, damage-over-time doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint with the background of Eve.

I will say that I do at least have some liking for your chaff-launcher idea.


I didn't like the DoT statement either, but have you ever seen a missile do 0 damage when in range? If your answer is no, then the DoT statement still applies. I will elaborate more when I get home.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2785 - 2013-12-06 22:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
So medium size missiles are in good shape but somehow people are choosing turrets over missiles now perhaps more than ever? Okay, seems legit.


I didn't say they were in good shape. They need tweaking. I've mentioned that several times already. But they are affected far more on how you fit than turrets for application. You could easily adjust above fittings to gain more tank and lose application on frigates but still apply respectable dps to cruiser sized targets. If you're wanting an op pwnmobile, thats max tank and gank and no application, then you're going to be disappointed.

Still think most are missing the point, missiles hit everytime, you can only outrun missiles or maybe kill them with SB or use defenders (lol) which no one has really touched on. Those systems could use some tweaking as well. So if you fit for more application, you will always be applying some form of dps. If HML are buffed too much, then they'll swing over into being op again because then you can reduce application rigs and modules and have more tank.

Buff hm dmg and application, introduce module to disrupt missiles would be ideal. I was thinking either incorporate the effect into afterburners or make a new utility high slot that affects explosion raduis/velocity that functions like a SB. Give it a slightly longer cycle time so you can still occasionly get good hits inbetween cycle times of said module. That way missile users aren't completely nuetered if they get into a fight with a ship that has one. We could call it chaff, and maybe even consumes charges? Like 20 charges and then a 10-20 second reload? You load it with scrap metal or some new charge. Functioning similar to defenders but u need only one module. It doesn't kill the missile just lowers application. The high slot then gives the choice of a nuet/nos or missile defense.

Sorry for any double post.

It doesn't matter if the missiles hit for 10% or less of their theoretical damage. Weapons are meant to kill with efficiency. So the damage over time analogy you are using is complete horse-****. That works fine with games that are similar to WoW. However, that is not Eve. Furthermore, damage-over-time doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint with the background of Eve.

I will say that I do at least have some liking for your chaff-launcher idea.


I didn't like the DoT statement either, but have you ever seen a missile do 0 damage when in range? If your answer is no, then the DoT statement still applies. I will elaborate more when I get home.

As a matter of fact, I have had my missiles do exactly 0 damage. Admittedly it was a dramiel and the missiles were being completely nullified due to the Sig-Explosion radius and Velocity-Explosion velocity ratios. I also recall losing that Drake too...

I look forward to your elaboration, Sir.

Edit: Still doesn't negate or mitigate that missiles should not be a DoT weapon or that DoT weapons make no sense in the context of the Eve Universe.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2786 - 2013-12-07 03:22:39 UTC
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Niena Nuamzzar wrote:
So medium size missiles are in good shape but somehow people are choosing turrets over missiles now perhaps more than ever? Okay, seems legit.


I didn't say they were in good shape. They need tweaking. I've mentioned that several times already. But they are affected far more on how you fit than turrets for application. You could easily adjust above fittings to gain more tank and lose application on frigates but still apply respectable dps to cruiser sized targets. If you're wanting an op pwnmobile, thats max tank and gank and no application, then you're going to be disappointed.

Still think most are missing the point, missiles hit everytime, you can only outrun missiles or maybe kill them with SB or use defenders (lol) which no one has really touched on. Those systems could use some tweaking as well. So if you fit for more application, you will always be applying some form of dps. If HML are buffed too much, then they'll swing over into being op again because then you can reduce application rigs and modules and have more tank.

Buff hm dmg and application, introduce module to disrupt missiles would be ideal. I was thinking either incorporate the effect into afterburners or make a new utility high slot that affects explosion raduis/velocity that functions like a SB. Give it a slightly longer cycle time so you can still occasionly get good hits inbetween cycle times of said module. That way missile users aren't completely nuetered if they get into a fight with a ship that has one. We could call it chaff, and maybe even consumes charges? Like 20 charges and then a 10-20 second reload? You load it with scrap metal or some new charge. Functioning similar to defenders but u need only one module. It doesn't kill the missile just lowers application. The high slot then gives the choice of a nuet/nos or missile defense.

Sorry for any double post.

It doesn't matter if the missiles hit for 10% or less of their theoretical damage. Weapons are meant to kill with efficiency. So the damage over time analogy you are using is complete horse-****. That works fine with games that are similar to WoW. However, that is not Eve. Furthermore, damage-over-time doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint with the background of Eve.

I will say that I do at least have some liking for your chaff-launcher idea.


I didn't like the DoT statement either, but have you ever seen a missile do 0 damage when in range? If your answer is no, then the DoT statement still applies. I will elaborate more when I get home.

As a matter of fact, I have had my missiles do exactly 0 damage. Admittedly it was a dramiel and the missiles were being completely nullified due to the Sig-Explosion radius and Velocity-Explosion velocity ratios. I also recall losing that Drake too...

I look forward to your elaboration, Sir.

Edit: Still doesn't negate or mitigate that missiles should not be a DoT weapon or that DoT weapons make no sense in the context of the Eve Universe.


Fair enough.

I am not wanting DoT weapons in Eve, i'm stating that for balancing purposes, thats at the core principle, that missiles act in a way that mimics DoT effects. You can either reduce their effectiveness (speed and low sigs) or increase their effectiveness (webs/tps/rigs), regardless, some kind of damage is being caused. Perhaps in apparently some of the more extreme cases you can negate all damage. Turrets have the chance to miss from every distance that is within range, making it more about skill and manualy flying to line up shots. Each have their benefits and disadvantages. Do HM need a buff? Yes, they just need to be tweaked a bit, but still make missile pilots fit tps/rigs (and oneday a missile guidance computer) to make it more on par with how turrets have to fit.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2787 - 2013-12-07 03:33:15 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Yes, they just need to be tweaked a bit, but still make missile pilots fit tps/rigs (and oneday a missile guidance computer) to make it more on par with how turrets have to fit.


The problem is that currently turret ships can use mids or lows to enhance tracking while missile ships have to use mid slots, and without any tracking enhancements they are massively better in all cases other than frig size weapons (where the gap is relatively small).
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2788 - 2013-12-07 03:54:56 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Fair enough.

I am not wanting DoT weapons in Eve, i'm stating that for balancing purposes, thats at the core principle, that missiles act in a way that mimics DoT effects. You can either reduce their effectiveness (speed and low sigs) or increase their effectiveness (webs/tps/rigs), regardless, some kind of damage is being caused. Perhaps in apparently some of the more extreme cases you can negate all damage. Turrets have the chance to miss from every distance that is within range, making it more about skill and manualy flying to line up shots. Each have their benefits and disadvantages. Do HM need a buff? Yes, they just need to be tweaked a bit, but still make missile pilots fit tps/rigs (and oneday a missile guidance computer) to make it more on par with how turrets have to fit.

Uh, except the same argument can be made about turrets that they are DoT weapons. Because they do some damage over time....
Hence the term 'DPS'
The problem is said DPS is negligible compared to turrets in most classes.
AND turrets are so much more economical to train skill wise.
Empeached
Patusan Retreats
#2789 - 2013-12-07 16:34:35 UTC
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? There have been lots of very informative posts in this thread highlighting some of the problems facing missiles (heavies in particular), and it seems like tackling these is the only real way to effectively balance rapids - it's hard to introduce a new mechanic into a system that for lots of people just isn't working as it should.

Would be nice to hear some feedback anyway - not least because I'm trying to work out whether the smart move is to switch to training drones or not...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2790 - 2013-12-07 16:55:02 UTC
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP?

The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "…while we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenarios… therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them."

Yeah… not holding my breath.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2791 - 2013-12-07 22:26:35 UTC
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? There have been lots of very informative posts in this thread highlighting some of the problems facing missiles (heavies in particular), and it seems like tackling these is the only real way to effectively balance rapids - it's hard to introduce a new mechanic into a system that for lots of people just isn't working as it should.

Would be nice to hear some feedback anyway - not least because I'm trying to work out whether the smart move is to switch to training drones or not...


CCP 40Sec don't give a ****. Sorry.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#2792 - 2013-12-07 22:44:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? There have been lots of very informative posts in this thread highlighting some of the problems facing missiles (heavies in particular), and it seems like tackling these is the only real way to effectively balance rapids - it's hard to introduce a new mechanic into a system that for lots of people just isn't working as it should.

Would be nice to hear some feedback anyway - not least because I'm trying to work out whether the smart move is to switch to training drones or not...

You better start training drones and turrets. Unless you are willing to make a bet that CCP Rise will actually fix his gross error. If I were you, better to not count on that happening. It is probably more likely that Jesus Christ will return ...no religious offense meant to anyone.

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP?

The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "…while we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenarios… therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them."

Yeah… not holding my breath.

Agreed! That is what I am betting on if anything.

Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? There have been lots of very informative posts in this thread highlighting some of the problems facing missiles (heavies in particular), and it seems like tackling these is the only real way to effectively balance rapids - it's hard to introduce a new mechanic into a system that for lots of people just isn't working as it should.

Would be nice to hear some feedback anyway - not least because I'm trying to work out whether the smart move is to switch to training drones or not...


CCP 40Sec don't give a ****. Sorry.

That was obvious back during Odyssey when 90% of the board in the HML thread stated that missile mechanics needed fixing and do a minor nerf on HMs as a temporary measure. Then it was reinforced during Retribution with the CM thread and what amounted to a nerf for the Raven and buff for the Typhoon-missile boat. Most recently, the RHML/RLML changes and accompanying nerf to the Caracal-class Cruiser in this Rubicon expansion.

Seriously, what more proof do you need that Rise and Fozzie are hell-bent on nerfing Caldari capabilities into the ground. The past track-record of their changes give no indication of any alternative intent.

@Newbs and Caldari pilots:
I would strongly advise you to train drones, hybrids, lasers or projectiles. Forget that missiles even exist. As mark my words, CCP Rise will nerf the Tengu into the grave come next expansion. We have no logical reason to believe that he won't based on his past actions. Remember, he loves the Gallente and Minmatar and to hell with Caldari.

The only way to force them to change their actions is to stop using that race's ships and systems almost entirely. Then their 'independant' metric bunch will force CCP 40sec and CCP Fizzle to take correctional action.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#2793 - 2013-12-07 23:00:17 UTC
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP? There have been lots of very informative posts in this thread highlighting some of the problems facing missiles (heavies in particular), and it seems like tackling these is the only real way to effectively balance rapids - it's hard to introduce a new mechanic into a system that for lots of people just isn't working as it should.

Would be nice to hear some feedback anyway - not least because I'm trying to work out whether the smart move is to switch to training drones or not...


Short answer it is (training drones), I have posted on missile SP efficiency. I have posted all the missile related threads going atm that I know of elsewhere and Figured Id do it here too.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3823191#post3823191 Mine, about SP.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=294382&find=unread Ransu Asanari multifaceted clusterguck discussion.

The RlML thread in features and ideas.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=301515 Missile debate in ships and modules DHB Wildcat.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3976668#post3976668 by Void Weaver also a summary.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2794 - 2013-12-07 23:05:02 UTC
Does anyone have access to a 3D printer? I was thinking we cuold print out some testicles for CCP40sec so he could man-up and at least defend his position instead of whining like a 3-yr old and acting worse than my gf when she's angry. Someone check his estrogen levels...

*This isn't constructive at all, but CCP has shown us quite clearly over and over again that they don't care about constructive.*
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#2795 - 2013-12-07 23:10:39 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP?

The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "…while we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenarios… therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them."

Yeah… not holding my breath.


Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked.
One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis).

Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters".
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2796 - 2013-12-07 23:14:50 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP?

The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "…while we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenarios… therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them."

Yeah… not holding my breath.


Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked.
One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis).

Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters".

The CSM hasn't poked their whiny heads in here in over 40 pages. (I'm guesstimating, I didn't actually check that number but I suspect it is actually quite higher) They also haven't said jack squat except that they support CCP because metrics and other BS
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2797 - 2013-12-08 00:05:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked.
One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis).

Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters".

It was cynicism midway through the thread… It's probably borderline narcissism at this point. And it's CCP-40sec or CCP-Fall until such time as he stops f**king around with weapon systems and works on improving the ones that need addressing.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2798 - 2013-12-08 00:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zvaarian the Red
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Empeached wrote:
So is there any chance we could get an update on this CCP?

The update I'm fully expecting is to the effect of "…while we were initially concerned with the 40-second reload/ammunition swap time, players seem to have adapted and are now utilizing the rapid launchers in numerous new tactical scenarios… therefore, we have decided to leave rapid launchers for now and continue evaluating them."

Yeah… not holding my breath.


Although I share your cynicism due to a complete lack of CCP interest for a topic which seems to have a serious presence in almost every forum. We shouldn't let it pour over or we get thread-locked.
One of the links I gave earlier shows the CSM is taking interest. (Malcanis).

Also I think it will be: "Focussing on more pressing matters".

The CSM hasn't poked their whiny heads in here in over 40 pages. (I'm guesstimating, I didn't actually check that number but I suspect it is actually quite higher) They also haven't said jack squat except that they support CCP because metrics and other BS


The CSM is complicit in all this bullshit as far as I can tell.
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#2799 - 2013-12-08 00:57:43 UTC
As FW soloer, I find myself even more useless now. It's hard enough not being able to use a battleship to fight the swarms of light t1 frigs with smartbombs or have a superior tank. Two catalysts will down any battleship design I can come up with short of putting light missiles on a Raven, especially if they shoot down your drones (something the FWers been getting especially good at).

You can also kiss your sec status goodbye if you smartbomb.

Anything smaller is going to die trying to solo 3-5 man gangs of frigs, especially if assault frigs are in the picture. Even with this DPS bursting RLMLs, you can't cut down dual ancillary TECH 1 frigs with any sort of ease.

Maybe if you limited an ancillary booster like a damage control to fitting only one maximum.

Still... it's rough. I'd love to hear recommendations for soloing in FW? Preferably in a PM so as to not derail topic?

UPDATE: Yeap, even 409 dps, I can't get my Caracal to cut down crap. And if you fight another cruiser especially, you're screwed when you hit reload.

Pretty much giving up on trying to even bother. If a 3-4 frig fleet can take anything trying to solo, I'd say the profession of soloing is dead or more expensive than the effort is worth.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2800 - 2013-12-08 01:24:32 UTC
What players don't seem to realize is that you get more armor resistances and passive tank through armor setups than you do with shield setups, often requiring more slots for comparably less tank. So it's easy to say "dual-web" except more often than not you've only got one slot to point or web - let alone dual webs and a point. And then there's the whole damage application aspect, which sees armor setups using their rigs and slave implants to improve tank while shield ships are relegated to running rigors and flares because they don't even have a spare slot for a target painter.

A passive low-slot Ballistic Enhancer that offered 20% explosion velocity, 10% explosion radius and 10% missile velocity (or some combination thereof) would probably balance things out nicely - maybe even offsetting the original heavy missile and Drake nerfs. It's not like missile-based hulls have a wealth of low slots to really make this offensive, and stacking penalties would be in effect just as they are for Tracking Enhancers. I could see many Caldari ships running a Ballistic Enhancer in place of a third or fourth Ballistic Control instead - so it's not like this won't come with a tradeoff, either.

The main issue is that instead of slowly making improvements to missiles it's been a steady series of nerfs while continuing to ignore the fundamental problems. As I've previously stated, it's not hard to fix missiles: you just need to have the actual desire to do so.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.