These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The great missile debate

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#181 - 2013-12-18 01:52:40 UTC
Jeb Vacano wrote:
The real moral here is that drones are awesome and everything else can suck a big fat one.

Pretty much.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#182 - 2013-12-18 12:24:35 UTC
Jeb Vacano wrote:

This is true, but at the same time, if my amar alt shoot at the same targets with a medium heavy beam laser my damage will be literally zero. Criticals don't do much good if i can't land a single shot. with .0093 rad/s tracking i would be lucky to hit a BS.

Fit pulse lasers and witness the wonders of unseen worlds.

Quote:

Lets try this. Omen vs. Carical maxed out skill identical hp with no resists. The carical will always hit at least for some damage, even if it is low. The omen will rarely if ever hit. That is if the omen can get within range. The carical has almost double the range of the omen so it's ability to hit is doubly screwed.

Hm... don't think you can kill nano maar Omen before reloading...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#183 - 2013-12-18 14:19:55 UTC
Jeb Vacano wrote:
Maxor Swift wrote:
I know nothing about the under lying machanics of this game but what i do know is that if a shoot anything smaller than a stationary cruiser with HMs or HAMs i do effectively 0 damage.

And now that RLMLs are too painful to use, i have ZERO options below cruises good job CCP.


This is true, but at the same time, if my amar alt shoot at the same targets with a medium heavy beam laser my damage will be literally zero. Criticals don't do much good if i can't land a single shot. with .0093 rad/s tracking i would be lucky to hit a BS.

Lets try this. Omen vs. Carical maxed out skill identical hp with no resists. The carical will always hit at least for some damage, even if it is low. The omen will rarely if ever hit. That is if the omen can get within range. The carical has almost double the range of the omen so it's ability to hit is doubly screwed.

The real moral here is that drones are awesome and everything else can suck a big fat one. A flight of Heavy berserker II gets better tracking than most frig turrets and properly fitted drone BC will get better dps than most BS turrets or missiles. And they can switch to any dmg type in seconds. Any kind of ewar has little effect on them since they keep going even if i can't lock targets and have no cap.



Critical shots always hit (if weapon ungrouped). The always have a chance to hit used to be more relevant before weapon groups. But since ccp decided they did nto want temmpests hitting for x3 damage with 6 arties at same time.. the critical calculations were changed and a lot was lsot.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#184 - 2013-12-18 15:21:22 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jeb Vacano wrote:
The real moral here is that drones are awesome and everything else can suck a big fat one.

Pretty much.
When I proposed to my alliance to use Heavy Drones as a doctrine after DDA were released, people told me I was ridiculous.

Nothing changed for heavy drones, but because sentries with high tracking and optimale range are fotm, drones suddenly became the thing.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#185 - 2013-12-18 21:28:18 UTC
Don't get me wrong drones are great, but yet again they aren't everything either. Missioning=Marauders. Sentries=null. Progression-wise it is hard to beat drones, and all round their versatility is probably unmatched. But something has to be that jack of all trades, if not drones then something else.And considering drones are quite rigid in other ways (mobility,ship progression, dps loss from managing and 1 sec server ticks), I think they make the better candidate to be just that.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#186 - 2013-12-18 21:34:36 UTC
I just read a post with the quote "And now that RLMLs are too painful to use, i have ZERO options below cruises good job CCP"

Um, you do know of Target painters, Webs, and T2 Precision missiles?
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#187 - 2013-12-18 22:43:40 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
I just read a post with the quote "And now that RLMLs are too painful to use, i have ZERO options below cruises good job CCP"

Um, you do know of Target painters, Webs, and T2 Precision missiles?


You seem to have missed the entire argument. Target painting scenarios are unrealistic. Not to mention 3,5 days short of 2 months worth of SP by themselves to have the equivalent of a "targeting computer/etc.".Web range dependence defeats the purpose of long ranged weapon systems. All of this was explained. Drones nor turrets suffer from such a DRASTIC universal dependance on such a plethora of E-war support to get to a decent "engagement profile". So before you picture any more caracals with HM webs and painters, educate yourself.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#188 - 2013-12-19 01:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Hi guys, I'm back with another psuedo-on topic post. :) I know, you all love me right?

My problem with missiles is that they are different from turrets, obviously, but they aren't different enough. What use is a range bonus, or an effective range bonus, if you can't hold your target on the field? The delay in hitting balances out the near surety of some kind of hit, but without assistance missile pilots are pushed (not forced necessarily) into fighting like turret pilots.

Edit: By this I meant that brawling and kiting has to be done inside of disruptor range to hold your target or you have to have assistance in the form of a tackle boat and split your fleet to take advantage of missile range. Guerrilla tactics do not typically recommend splitting your forces like this as it places them out of range to help each other. The Caldari are guerrilla fighters, so their tactics should allow them to fly as a coherent fleet. I am talking of the range of HMs, and cruises for the most part here, where only a small range of their potential is within disruptor range.

I'm sure there are plenty of situations that those on the other side of the discussion table will be happy to point to in which long range missiles blah blah blah.... My point is that missiles should be more different from turrets, maybe even going so far as to step beyond just selectable damage type and having selectable payloads i.e. something resembling a cruise missile, with limited capacity and RoF that fires out of a cruise launcher and inhibits warp for the duration of it's flight (shortened by reduced fuel capacity)... or something like that. Reload would be the same as cruise missiles, or maybe another 5 seconds, but a Meta 1 launcher might only hold 4 or 5 such charges. I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this idea, and I ask you not to focus on the flaws in 1 idea that I just thought up but instead focus and discuss ways in which missiles can be different from turrets as a weapon and increase the viability of their range advantages.

This makes me want to be able, with a penalty, to load missiles like these into a standard mix. Decreased overall magazine capacity of 50% and mix 4 regular missiles to 1 warp disruptor.

Another possible, albeit hair-brained, idea would be an ECM missile. It reaches the target, explodes for no damage while releasing enough of a directed energy pulse to break target locks. Allows for instant reacquiring, not the lasting effects of ECM, but can change things up a bit. Make 4 of this type, 1 for each type of sensor, so you have to recognize what you are fighting and adapt the same as flying ECM. ECCM would be effective against these as well as defenders. I would like to see the effectiveness of the individual ECM types boosted by the sensor skills to prevent missile pilots from having yet another skill added for effective missile piloting, or maybe 1 combined skill. Effective missile pilots have a longer training queue than similar turret pilots and I would not like to see this gap increased unreasonably.

The point of this post was to suggest some brainstorming in the ways that missiles could be made different from turrets, capitalize on Caldari range bonuses, strengthen the idea of the Caldari as guerrilla fighters, and increase the depth of flying a missile boat. Those are my thoughts right now, and if they were accompanied to the drawing board by a rework of damage application of missiles I would be very pleased. Balance would be key, but would be very workable if a strong and open-minded (not 40sec or Fizzle) team sat down to has out the details.

Edit: I hope I made it clear that if these changes were incorporated in a well balanced and thought out way that it would strengthen the guerrilla tactics of Caldari missiles pilots without pushing them too far into the realm of OP. A test of one new non-damage type of missile might pave the way for an entirely new line of missiles oriented at boosting damage application by covering a target in a material to increase sig radius among other things. Missile boats in general could become an important fleet (of 2-2000) tool, or could very well become a high priority target to discourage such usage. Who knows.

Edited by yours truly for paragraphs to increase user readability, your browser now has a 40 second reload timer on replies. :)
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#189 - 2013-12-19 03:58:31 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Hi guys, I'm back with another psuedo-on topic post. :) I know, you all love me right?
My problem with missiles is that they are different from turrets, obviously, but they aren't different enough. What use is a range bonus, or an effective range bonus, if you can't hold your target on the field? The delay in hitting balances out the near surety of some kind of hit, but without assistance missile pilots are pushed (not forced necessarily) into fighting like turret pilots.
Edit: By this I meant that brawling and kiting has to be done inside of disruptor range to hold your target or you have to have assistance in the form of a tackle boat and split your fleet to take advantage of missile range. Guerrilla tactics do not typically recommend splitting your forces like this as it places them out of range to help each other. The Caldari are guerrilla fighters, so their tactics should allow them to fly as a coherent fleet. I am talking of the range of HMs, and cruises for the most part here, where only a small range of their potential is within disruptor range.
I'm sure there are plenty of situations that those on the other side of the discussion table will be happy to point to in which long range missiles blah blah blah.... My point is that missiles should be more different from turrets, maybe even going so far as to step beyond just selectable damage type and having selectable payloads i.e. something resembling a cruise missile, with limited capacity and RoF that fires out of a cruise launcher and inhibits warp for the duration of it's flight (shortened by reduced fuel capacity)... or something like that. Reload would be the same as cruise missiles, or maybe another 5 seconds, but a Meta 1 launcher might only hold 4 or 5 such charges. I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this idea, and I ask you not to focus on the flaws in 1 idea that I just thought up but instead focus and discuss ways in which missiles can be different from turrets as a weapon and increase the viability of their range advantages.
This makes me want to be able, with a penalty, to load missiles like these into a standard mix. Decreased overall magazine capacity of 50% and mix 4 regular missiles to 1 warp disruptor.
Another possible, albeit hair-brained, idea would be an ECM missile. It reaches the target, explodes for no damage while releasing enough of a directed energy pulse to break target locks. Allows for instant reacquiring, not the lasting effects of ECM, but can change things up a bit. Make 4 of this type, 1 for each type of sensor, so you have to recognize what you are fighting and adapt the same as flying ECM. ECCM would be effective against these as well as defenders. I would like to see the effectiveness of the individual ECM types boosted by the sensor skills to prevent missile pilots from having yet another skill added for effective missile piloting, or maybe 1 combined skill. Effective missile pilots have a longer training queue than similar turret pilots and I would not like to see this gap increased unreasonably.

The point of this post was to suggest some brainstorming in the ways that missiles could be made different from turrets, capitalize on Caldari range bonuses, strengthen the idea of the Caldari as guerrilla fighters, and increase the depth of flying a missile boat. Those are my thoughts right now, and if they were accompanied to the drawing board by a rework of damage application of missiles I would be very pleased. Balance would be key, but would be very workable if a strong and open-minded (not 40sec or Fizzle) team sat down to has out the details.
Edit: I hope I made it clear that if these changes were incorporated in a well balanced and thought out way that it would strengthen the guerrilla tactics of Caldari missiles pilots without pushing them too far into the realm of OP. A test of one new non-damage type of missile might pave the way for an entirely new line of missiles oriented at boosting damage application by covering a target in a material to increase sig radius among other things. Missile boats in general could become an important fleet (of 2-2000) tool, or could very well become a high priority target to discourage such usage. Who knows.


Please for the love of all things sacred

Paragraphs /o\

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#190 - 2013-12-19 04:04:07 UTC
Tada!
But now that I have inserted distinguishable paragraphs, you should read and reply in a sensible manner. It's only the civil thing to do
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#191 - 2013-12-19 08:09:59 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Tada!
But now that I have inserted distinguishable paragraphs, you should read and reply in a sensible manner. It's only the civil thing to do


I've thought of missiles with E-war effects too, but figured it too hard to implement. What I would like to see is the ability to launch every type of missiles from a launcher size group from said size launcher. So RLM, HAM, HM from "medium launchers. Maybe that would be too OP too but it sure would make missiles more interesting. Also, I see no reason for missiles to take 10 seconds to reload opposed to 5 or instant. Maybe if reload times were affected by rate of fire but until then it creates a flawed formula.
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#192 - 2013-12-19 11:27:09 UTC  |  Edited by: S4nn4
I have begun to suspect that missiles were intended as the highest alpha weapon. This is based on their designed behaviour in comparison to guns. Compare these two lists:

Missiles
1) Delayed damage (graphics show the approaching threat)
2) No reduction in damage over distance (out to max range)
3) No randomness in the damage
4) Damage is always reduced against smaller than intended targets
5) The target can reduce incoming damage by using speed (a certain minimum value must be reached before this have an effect), direction of travel doesn't matter

Guns
1) Instant damage at any range
2) Random damage variation, 50-149% around base damage (max is actually "hit chance" + 49%)
3) Chance of perfect hits (the first 1% in the entire hit+miss=100% interval, 3x the base damage)
4) Gradual loss of hit chance as a result of falloff distances and against moving targets
5) Just being small offers no protection, an angular velocity is also needed (attacker or target must have a transversal ("sideways") speed relative to eachother, otherwise: 'blap')
6) The target can reduce incoming damage through a combination of speed and travel direction


To me (my opinion), the missiles delayed and non-random damage coupled with a built in protection for smaller ships just screams "this should hit very, very hard". While guns with their random damage, instant damage and potentially max hits on small targets should hit less hard (but often) to mitigate this randomness, otherwise luck becomes a too important factor in the outcome of a fight.

This begs the question: Are missiles currently a DPS weapon with the constraints of an alpha weapon?
I believe that this is important. A weapon that can potentially insta-kill a target must have harsher damage reduction mechanics to hold it in check, otherwise it becomes completely overpowered. But when that same weapon is put into a DPS role instead, it will loose the ability to blap a target but it won't loose the harsh penalty to its damage application. If this is the case, then it's only natural that it would be underperforming compared to other DPS weapons.

tl;dr
missiles have penalties more suitable for a highest alpha weapon
guns have a random behaviour more suited for high DPS

Any thoughts on this?
Maxor Swift
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#193 - 2013-12-19 16:44:28 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
I just read a post with the quote "And now that RLMLs are too painful to use, i have ZERO options below cruises good job CCP"

Um, you do know of Target painters, Webs, and T2 Precision missiles?


What on my caracal where do i put the tank and i was refering to the 40 secs reload.also to get the same or less DPS than turrents i have to use ammo thats 10x the price .Wow how lucky i am.

Ive said later that my cerb works fine with HAMs (with tier 2 riggs and lvl 5 skills).

"What you talking about willis"
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#194 - 2013-12-19 17:55:38 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
I just read a post with the quote "And now that RLMLs are too painful to use, i have ZERO options below cruises good job CCP"

Um, you do know of Target painters, Webs, and T2 Precision missiles?


You seem to have missed the entire argument. Target painting scenarios are unrealistic. Not to mention 3,5 days short of 2 months worth of SP by themselves to have the equivalent of a "targeting computer/etc.".Web range dependence defeats the purpose of long ranged weapon systems. All of this was explained. Drones nor turrets suffer from such a DRASTIC universal dependance on such a plethora of E-war support to get to a decent "engagement profile". So before you picture any more caracals with HM webs and painters, educate yourself.
Turret ships have to be piloted carefuly for dps to be steady. Missiles have to have a way to reduce their dps. And to make them different from turrets, CCP came with speed and signature so that their dps is independant from relative position.

scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
The Caldari are guerrilla fighters
This is completely wrong.

Quote:
interesting ideas
These are interesting ideas, but you are still wrong if you think caldari favor guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare tactics are favored by gallente and minmatar and that's why their ships are tuned for small gang whereas caldari and amarr favor fleet warfare, hence the low speed but good buffer tank and range their ships and weapons have.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#195 - 2013-12-19 18:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Hide hide hide....
This thread just got a lot smarter with 2 simple clicks.

Missiles are broken, and not just in the sense that they have damage application problems. Aside from one 'tard, whose posts I have blocked, there aren't a lot of people who can argue that missiles have a point outside of disruptor range combat i.e. the 200km+ range of cruise missiles is only useful in PvE.
Edit: My cruise missiles currently have a range of 222km, they would take ~20 seconds to cover this distance which is enough time for just about any ship to align and warp out. Not too mention the multiple SeBos I will need to extend my lock range that far, and another 1 to be able to lock in a decent time, which ties up my midslots. If we agree that this extreme range has no purpose outside of mission running then lets say we drop this range to 100km, which is well within the effective range of BS arty that has a tendency to make missiles the laughingstock of a fleet. At 100km my missiles would have a flight time of around 8 seconds, TPs are beyond their falloff range, and to hold the target on the field the fleet is split. To avoid splitting the fleet, you are using missiles as a close range weapon regardless of their range capabilities which seems to me like a broken mechanic.
If anyone besides the blocked has a reasonable argument, I would be amenable to reading it and responding, establishing some constructive discourse.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#196 - 2013-12-19 19:28:45 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Hide hide hide....
This thread just got a lot smarter with 2 simple clicks.

Missiles are broken, and not just in the sense that they have damage application problems. Aside from one 'tard, whose posts I have blocked, there aren't a lot of people who can argue that missiles have a point outside of disruptor range combat i.e. the 200km+ range of cruise missiles is only useful in PvE.
Edit: My cruise missiles currently have a range of 222km, they would take ~20 seconds to cover this distance which is enough time for just about any ship to align and warp out. Not too mention the multiple SeBos I will need to extend my lock range that far, and another 1 to be able to lock in a decent time, which ties up my midslots. If we agree that this extreme range has no purpose outside of mission running then lets say we drop this range to 100km, which is well within the effective range of BS arty that has a tendency to make missiles the laughingstock of a fleet. At 100km my missiles would have a flight time of around 8 seconds, TPs are beyond their falloff range, and to hold the target on the field the fleet is split. To avoid splitting the fleet, you are using missiles as a close range weapon regardless of their range capabilities which seems to me like a broken mechanic.
If anyone besides the blocked has a reasonable argument, I would be amenable to reading it and responding, establishing some constructive discourse.
So you know nothing about fleet warfare.

Until HML were nerfed, they were among the best fleet weapon in game : tengu fleet and drake fleet were shaping and ruling nullsec warfare. Tengu fleet had an operating range of 100km with missiles going to 8000m/s. Nowadays, HML and cruise missiles both are faster than before. The time to target is a problem of older times when fleets were sniping fleets. This argument of missiles too slow to be useful is really getting old.

Nowadays, Caracal already had glorious days with whole nullsec blobs of them. There also are fleets of HAML AB Caracal, and fleets of HAML Sacrilege. And I still see some Drakes from time to time, in a fair number considering how many BC and shield fleets I see.

Also, if you feel smarter by abandoning the debate, I think you have a lot of margin for progression. An actually smart person would have no trouble dealing with a "troll".
shal ri
Short Bus Window Licker
#197 - 2013-12-19 20:27:36 UTC
Missiles work fine stop coming up with ideas to ruin caldri kiting ships.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#198 - 2013-12-19 20:43:23 UTC
S4nn4 wrote:
I Long post.
tl;dr
missiles have penalties more suitable for a highest alpha weapon
guns have a random behaviour more suited for high DPS

Any thoughts on this?



We actually had a lengthy discussion on this topic. And I believe it was in the cruise missile thread in features&ideas. The announcements that is, and what you are suggesting was a general consensus, as well as a missile fight speed increase which happened thank god. We used to have even more range and even slower application.
Missiles do alpha quite high as is, I think it could be way more to actually make for a trade off as well but it is a slippery slope.
Cruise missiles currently function well enough against cruisers to make insta-pops a very easy occurrence. Ofc I might be catching on to pro-gun fanatics sentiments here, since for some reason missiles doing what guns do has become a form of blasphemy in all our minds. That said it could prove a bit difficult to deal with the medium to low range more so with BS and BC.
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
#199 - 2013-12-19 21:08:21 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Hide hide hide....
This thread just got a lot smarter with 2 simple clicks.

Missiles are broken, and not just in the sense that they have damage application problems. Aside from one 'tard, whose posts I have blocked, there aren't a lot of people who can argue that missiles have a point outside of disruptor range combat i.e. the 200km+ range of cruise missiles is only useful in PvE.
Edit: My cruise missiles currently have a range of 222km, they would take ~20 seconds to cover this distance which is enough time for just about any ship to align and warp out. Not too mention the multiple SeBos I will need to extend my lock range that far, and another 1 to be able to lock in a decent time, which ties up my midslots. If we agree that this extreme range has no purpose outside of mission running then lets say we drop this range to 100km, which is well within the effective range of BS arty that has a tendency to make missiles the laughingstock of a fleet. At 100km my missiles would have a flight time of around 8 seconds, TPs are beyond their falloff range, and to hold the target on the field the fleet is split. To avoid splitting the fleet, you are using missiles as a close range weapon regardless of their range capabilities which seems to me like a broken mechanic.
If anyone besides the blocked has a reasonable argument, I would be amenable to reading it and responding, establishing some constructive discourse.


I agree fully, except on cruise missiles since they don't suck balls and can do frigate level dps to certain frigates under some circumstances. Which is at least a breath of fresh air. They don't blow too hard for PvP. Still not ideal because of the lower engagement profile as usual and the over-dependence yet again on: target painting/webbing the need for both being the clincher.

Fitting is still the major issue. If people would just imagine using gunships where you have to use rig-slots as you primary source of passive accuracy increase instead of, using it like the icing on your cake, your finishing touch. Then you need to use target painters instead of tracking computers, but this wont keep your dps from cutting in half outside of web range or worse against smaller hulls. You ofc have no such things as gyrostabilizers etc. Sounds a little crazy, and it is a daily reality for missile users.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#200 - 2013-12-20 00:28:03 UTC
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Hide hide hide....
This thread just got a lot smarter with 2 simple clicks.

Missiles are broken, and not just in the sense that they have damage application problems. Aside from one 'tard, whose posts I have blocked, there aren't a lot of people who can argue that missiles have a point outside of disruptor range combat i.e. the 200km+ range of cruise missiles is only useful in PvE.
Edit: My cruise missiles currently have a range of 222km, they would take ~20 seconds to cover this distance which is enough time for just about any ship to align and warp out. Not too mention the multiple SeBos I will need to extend my lock range that far, and another 1 to be able to lock in a decent time, which ties up my midslots. If we agree that this extreme range has no purpose outside of mission running then lets say we drop this range to 100km, which is well within the effective range of BS arty that has a tendency to make missiles the laughingstock of a fleet. At 100km my missiles would have a flight time of around 8 seconds, TPs are beyond their falloff range, and to hold the target on the field the fleet is split. To avoid splitting the fleet, you are using missiles as a close range weapon regardless of their range capabilities which seems to me like a broken mechanic.
If anyone besides the blocked has a reasonable argument, I would be amenable to reading it and responding, establishing some constructive discourse.


I agree fully, except on cruise missiles since they don't suck balls and can do frigate level dps to certain frigates under some circumstances. Which is at least a breath of fresh air. They don't blow too hard for PvP. Still not ideal because of the lower engagement profile as usual and the over-dependence yet again on: target painting/webbing the need for both being the clincher.

Fitting is still the major issue. If people would just imagine using gunships where you have to use rig-slots as you primary source of passive accuracy increase instead of, using it like the icing on your cake, your finishing touch. Then you need to use target painters instead of tracking computers, but this wont keep your dps from cutting in half outside of web range or worse against smaller hulls. You ofc have no such things as gyrostabilizers etc. Sounds a little crazy, and it is a daily reality for missile users.

I agree about cruise missiles. They are really the only saving grace in regards to missiles for me.
And the knee jerk reaction of some turret pilots to cover their ears and scream TP AND WEB MISSILES OP! does not help either side in this discussion.
EWAR missiles would be very difficult to implement, but gradual introduction of EWAR missiles along with a corresponding missile mechanic balancing, would allow missile pilots to take practical advantage of long range missiles.

And @ shal ri and you lengthy, detailed, and eloquent post:
In what way are the missile proponents trying to ruin kiting ships here? What I'm suggesting would be to actually extend the kiting ability of missile ships beyond brawl range. When you are talking about long range missiles, <30km counts as brawl range.