Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ballistic Enhancer
This would function similar to the Tracking Enhancer for turrets, allowing missile-based ships to better apply damage without having to utilize rig slots - which frees up more options for PvP fits. This would be a passive low-slot module, and since low slots are a premium on most missile-based hulls - these would be a tradeoff for raw DPS, speed, damage control (etc.)

Ballistic Enhancer II (+variants)
• 10% missile velocity, 7.5% explosion radius and 7.5% explosion velocity (I)
• 12.5% missile velocity, 10% explosion radius and 10% explosion velocity (II)
• 15% missile velocity, 12.5% explosion radius and 12.5% explosion velocity (Faction)
• Passive module, low-slot; non-scripted; 15 tf CPU (I), 30 tf CPU (II), 25 tf CPU (Faction), 1 MW power grid (all)
• Weapon Upgrades IV (II) and Missile Operation II skill requirements
• Stacking penalized with other modules and rigs

People have been asking for something like this for a long time, personally I would like to see it. Your vision of this module is close to what I would expect as an implementation from CCP, though, I worry that as a trade off, turret destabilizers will be applied to missiles. We'll see, I feel like missiles as a whole need to be looked at, and the slot layout of a few caldari ships need to be looked at too. CCP has a lot of work ahead of them and I think that they need to review the ramifications of some of their recent changes/additions to the game.

You know, now that you say it, it might be nice to see a bigger benefit to radius and velocity over extra range. Application is one of the gripes have about missiles, and it would also help to keep missiles differentiated from turrets

No, because some hulls may not be able to run any of these - so that would unfairly penalize them. And turrets still have a scripted mid-slot Tracking Computer, so tracking disruptors really tie-in with these more.


Without a comparable missile-based Ballistic Computer, I don't see how that would be fair at all. Most turret-based hulls can afford to run 1-2 Tracking Enhancers and at least 1 Tracking Computer, whereas most missile-based hulls will be hard-pressed to just run a single Ballistic Enhancer. We also have Target Painters.


No. But we can agree that you're just trolling.


I'm not necessarily fixated on missile velocity, although it would be nice to have some benefit. I might revise it down to 5%/10%/15%, respectively.

Not all turrets have issues with damage application; all missiles do (even with Target Painters). If we're going to level the playing field, then missiles also need a medium-slot scripted Ballistic Computer. And Drones also need to be affected by tracking disruptors as well. Since I suspect this would be akin to opening Pandora's Box, I'm just advocating for the low-slot module and to leave everything else as is.

There's already a tradeoff for being able to "always hit", that being missiles can't get critical hits. It should also be noted that "always hit" often translates into negligible damage - and missiles are also affected by ECM. Does this mean missiles would get critical strikes if they were affected by tracking disruptors?

why does everyone always want to target/missile disrupt missiles?

they already have the penalties turrets dont, they take time to hit, giving you plenty of time to call for reps or make sure your **** is prepped, they have low alpha, and their damage scales ridiculously for the good and bad when they are fighting outside their weight class. a disruptor would just make them NEVER be viable in pvp.

as to the OP, im fairly meh, missiles do okay in pvp how it is, maybe they could use a little love, but i would prefer to see a retweak of existing missile rigs/modules to make them more appealing, rather than introduce an entirely new module.

If CCP made one of these mods I would use it. Any warheads bigger than rockets don't do their full dmg to moving targets. And to boot you can outrun rockets.

So basically you want a module that can keep missiles useless in PVP. Got it.

Yes, although I'm not sure what you're getting at...