These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Missile Guidence Module suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Actaeon Versaea
#1 - 2014-01-10 23:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Actaeon Versaea
Right; Ill keep this short, but it's my tuppence towards the missile problem:

A ship module called [Illustrious name here].

Goes in whatever slot the balancing slot the chaps at CCP think best - possibly high as most missile boats have spare high slots

While activated the following effects are applied to targeted ships only:

  • Explosion Radius is decreased by 30%-50% depending on meta level of the module.
  • Explosion Velocity is increased by 50%-70% depending on meta.
  • Max target count reduced by 2
  • Targeting speed takes 50%-35% longer, depending on meta (To acquire the 'more accurate,' firing solution)


The numbers are just examples to communicate the point that it is meant to make missiles comparable to turrets, not what they necessarily should be.

Comments, criticism, obscene personal abuse?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2 - 2014-01-10 23:24:48 UTC
you're a c**t ShockedBig smile .... you said i could

basically its a missile version of a remote tracking computer ... but a little OP by the looks of the amount of bonuses and % stated

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3 - 2014-01-10 23:37:10 UTC
My thoughts are that this needs to be a passive low-slot Ballistic Enhancer (same as Tracking Enhancers), with 10% explosion radius, 10% explosion velocity and 20% missile velocity (T2 module).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#4 - 2014-01-11 03:18:50 UTC
Making it a high slot would be a bad idea (Raven Navy Issue for example would lose more than it would gain), and making it an active module is damn-near a slap in the face when combined with that.

Your first 2 bullet points are good, nut your second 2 are completely asinine. You want to make a comparable module to a TC I'm assuming, so can you point out the TC that reduces your max targets and drastically increases your lock time? Missiles already only have 1 dedicated module that affects missiles while turrets have 2 (3?), and this back-handed "buff" will see about as much use as the new Rapid series of launchers.

Arthur is much closer to a good suggestion than you are.
Meyr
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-01-11 03:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Meyr
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with some of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too. This would REALLY **** off all of the missile-boat mission-runners currently laughing when they get tracking-disrupted.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit. Hey, drones can miss, turrets can miss, why not join in on the fun?

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits. "Your group of cruise missiles hits for (1/3 normal damage) (Graze)". Think you'll like seeing that?

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#6 - 2014-01-11 03:50:12 UTC
Meyr wrote:
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with all of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit.

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits.

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.


1. If the modules are good modules, then I would accept some countermeasures to them, but it should at the least be a different script from turrets.

2. That defeats the entire point of missiles, so no.

3. I proposed a slight variation and it did not go over well in the form of a +/-5% variation from 100%....

4. Missiles are already affected by some pretty bad modifier, so no. :)

When you factor in long range flight time, turrets already have enough of an advantage that giving missiles the same number of modules would not be OP.
Meyr
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2014-01-11 04:11:06 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Meyr wrote:
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with all of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit.

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits.

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.


1. If the modules are good modules, then I would accept some countermeasures to them, but it should at the least be a different script from turrets.

2. That defeats the entire point of missiles, so no.

3. I proposed a slight variation and it did not go over well in the form of a +/-5% variation from 100%....

4. Missiles are already affected by some pretty bad modifier, so no. :)

When you factor in long range flight time, turrets already have enough of an advantage that giving missiles the same number of modules would not be OP.


Missiles already have several advantages over turrets. What you're proposing is to add to those advantages while only experiencing the slightest of inconveniences.

I find your point 2 to be entirely self-serving, as in asking for a free bonus with no consequence.

Your point 3 would need to be expanded to the same variations turret users experience, or the BS flag needs to be waved. Anything less is, again, self-serving.

Point 4 - CCP have already stated that they are aware that missiles need to be re-examined. I would imagine that this will occur once they get the 'Capital Ship Balance Pass' (tm) done, so that they can maybe finally enable the Caldari Dread to hit the POS, instead of the moon nearby.

Missiles do not do instant damage. This is the price you pay for having selectable damage types, no disruption, no need to adjust YOUR flight path to compensate for transversal, not needing to be 'not too close, but not too far', and the ability to hit for the same damage at 10 KM as you do at 60 KM (using the omni-present Drake as an example).
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#8 - 2014-01-11 04:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Meyr wrote:
CCP have already stated that they are aware that missiles need to be re-examined. I would imagine that this will occur once they get the 'Capital Ship Balance Pass' (tm) done, so that they can maybe finally enable the Caldari Dread to hit the POS, instead of the moon nearby.

Missiles do not do instant damage. This is the price you pay for having selectable damage types, no disruption, no need to adjust YOUR flight path to compensate for transversal, not needing to be 'not too close, but not too far', and the ability to hit for the same damage at 10 KM as you do at 60 KM (using the omni-present Drake as an example).

Pirate FML...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2014-01-11 04:46:19 UTC
Meyr wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Meyr wrote:
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with all of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit.

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits.

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.


1. If the modules are good modules, then I would accept some countermeasures to them, but it should at the least be a different script from turrets.

2. That defeats the entire point of missiles, so no.

3. I proposed a slight variation and it did not go over well in the form of a +/-5% variation from 100%....

4. Missiles are already affected by some pretty bad modifier, so no. :)

When you factor in long range flight time, turrets already have enough of an advantage that giving missiles the same number of modules would not be OP.


Missiles already have several advantages over turrets. What you're proposing is to add to those advantages while only experiencing the slightest of inconveniences.

I find your point 2 to be entirely self-serving, as in asking for a free bonus with no consequence.

Your point 3 would need to be expanded to the same variations turret users experience, or the BS flag needs to be waved. Anything less is, again, self-serving.

Point 4 - CCP have already stated that they are aware that missiles need to be re-examined. I would imagine that this will occur once they get the 'Capital Ship Balance Pass' (tm) done, so that they can maybe finally enable the Caldari Dread to hit the POS, instead of the moon nearby.

Missiles do not do instant damage. This is the price you pay for having selectable damage types, no disruption, no need to adjust YOUR flight path to compensate for transversal, not needing to be 'not too close, but not too far', and the ability to hit for the same damage at 10 KM as you do at 60 KM (using the omni-present Drake as an example).


So many people on this forum live in a fantasy world. Missiles are drastically inferior to turrets for PVP. Their advantages are massively outweighed by their disadvantages, and outside light missiles and torps on stealth bombers they simply are not used in PVP for the most part. Proposals to improve them are always met with this kind of crap from turret users, and it gets old. They are not on an even playing field with turrets, so please stop pretending they are.
Meyr
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-01-11 05:08:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Meyr
I am disposable wrote:
Meyr wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Meyr wrote:
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with all of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit.

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits.

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.


1. If the modules are good modules, then I would accept some countermeasures to them, but it should at the least be a different script from turrets.

2. That defeats the entire point of missiles, so no.

3. I proposed a slight variation and it did not go over well in the form of a +/-5% variation from 100%....

4. Missiles are already affected by some pretty bad modifier, so no. :)

When you factor in long range flight time, turrets already have enough of an advantage that giving missiles the same number of modules would not be OP.


Missiles already have several advantages over turrets. What you're proposing is to add to those advantages while only experiencing the slightest of inconveniences.

I find your point 2 to be entirely self-serving, as in asking for a free bonus with no consequence.

Your point 3 would need to be expanded to the same variations turret users experience, or the BS flag needs to be waved. Anything less is, again, self-serving.

Point 4 - CCP have already stated that they are aware that missiles need to be re-examined. I would imagine that this will occur once they get the 'Capital Ship Balance Pass' (tm) done, so that they can maybe finally enable the Caldari Dread to hit the POS, instead of the moon nearby.

Missiles do not do instant damage. This is the price you pay for having selectable damage types, no disruption, no need to adjust YOUR flight path to compensate for transversal, not needing to be 'not too close, but not too far', and the ability to hit for the same damage at 10 KM as you do at 60 KM (using the omni-present Drake as an example).


So many people on this forum live in a fantasy world. Missiles are drastically inferior to turrets for PVP. Their advantages are massively outweighed by their disadvantages, and outside light missiles and torps on stealth bombers they simply are not used in PVP for the most part. Proposals to improve them are always met with this kind of crap from turret users, and it gets old. They are not on an even playing field with turrets, so please stop pretending they are.


Who said they were? Obviously, you didn't read my final paragraph. And, FYI, I use all three - guns, missiles, and drones, in PVE and PVP.

Missiles are generally superior in PVE. Turrets are generally superior in PVP. Drones are superior to either of them in either role UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.

Deal with it.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#11 - 2014-01-11 06:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
That doesn't change the fact that your proposed Guidance Module seems to be as good an idea as the current iteration of Rapid Lights, addressing issues that really aren't issues in the first place.
If you want a module that is on par with the turret modules why make it reduce max targets, increase lock time? If it were a high slot as well that would be completely defeat the purpose of creating a module similar to, I assume, a Tracking Computer.

Despite what a good number of forum posters think, missile proponents aren't out for missiles to hit everything for max damage with no drawbacks, we just want someone at CCP to finally acknowledge that they are attempting to actually close the gap a bit between missiles and turrets.
Turrets have scripts and modules that allow a great deal of modification to the application of their damage, on top of the applicable rigs. Missiles have rigs, and Rigors are the only ones really worth using in most cases, and the Ballistic Computers. So you can say that missiles have more flexibility in damage type, but you are ignoring that they are much more rigid in damage application than turrets. And it is not an equal trade at all.

Missiles being superior in PvE is another backhanded complement as it doesn't even encompass all of PvE, try and take a missile boat into an incursion fleet. Why should missiles be "generally superior" at PvE, which seems to mostly serve as a stepping stone/early training ground for the move into PvP?

I would argue that your posts are self-serving because you are trying to present this module as beneficial to missile pilots while it only really seems to be beneficial to the turret-whiners on the forums as a concession they can point to and say "see, we gave you that so go be happy in your missions".
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-01-11 10:39:37 UTC
Meyr wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
Meyr wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Meyr wrote:
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with all of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit.

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits.

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.


1. If the modules are good modules, then I would accept some countermeasures to them, but it should at the least be a different script from turrets.

2. That defeats the entire point of missiles, so no.

3. I proposed a slight variation and it did not go over well in the form of a +/-5% variation from 100%....

4. Missiles are already affected by some pretty bad modifier, so no. :)

When you factor in long range flight time, turrets already have enough of an advantage that giving missiles the same number of modules would not be OP.


Missiles already have several advantages over turrets. What you're proposing is to add to those advantages while only experiencing the slightest of inconveniences.

I find your point 2 to be entirely self-serving, as in asking for a free bonus with no consequence.

Your point 3 would need to be expanded to the same variations turret users experience, or the BS flag needs to be waved. Anything less is, again, self-serving.

Point 4 - CCP have already stated that they are aware that missiles need to be re-examined. I would imagine that this will occur once they get the 'Capital Ship Balance Pass' (tm) done, so that they can maybe finally enable the Caldari Dread to hit the POS, instead of the moon nearby.

Missiles do not do instant damage. This is the price you pay for having selectable damage types, no disruption, no need to adjust YOUR flight path to compensate for transversal, not needing to be 'not too close, but not too far', and the ability to hit for the same damage at 10 KM as you do at 60 KM (using the omni-present Drake as an example).


So many people on this forum live in a fantasy world. Missiles are drastically inferior to turrets for PVP. Their advantages are massively outweighed by their disadvantages, and outside light missiles and torps on stealth bombers they simply are not used in PVP for the most part. Proposals to improve them are always met with this kind of crap from turret users, and it gets old. They are not on an even playing field with turrets, so please stop pretending they are.


Who said they were? Obviously, you didn't read my final paragraph. And, FYI, I use all three - guns, missiles, and drones, in PVE and PVP.

Missiles are generally superior in PVE. Turrets are generally superior in PVP. Drones are superior to either of them in either role UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.

Deal with it.


Your post's are an obscene ammount of ignorance :D

Oh yeah, missiles only have one single disadvantage, and that's travel time.. not that they don't have any others. Nvm - we should deal with the inferiority of missiles in PvP, while turrets are nowhere near inferior for PvE! That's not a fair deal, but we should absolutely deal with it.

Yay.

Nonsense I say.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#13 - 2014-01-11 12:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Meyr wrote:

Missiles are generally superior in PVE. Turrets are generally superior in PVP. Drones are superior to either of them in either role UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.

Deal with it.



Actually that is bit outdated now. I could go for the obvious incursions where guns are much more loved over missiles.

Or I could go for marauders where the new range boosts in bastion work out rather decent. Golem gets this of course but if you actually use the range you hurt yourself imo. In that even longer range is longer time to reach target. TBH I can currently fly golem (and have done so in the past rebuff) but feel no need to rebuy it.

Kronos however....Its got a bit of the PVE rokh I actually like to run from time to time (i.e. range bonus in bastion) with tracking and damage bonus for a few motivators to learn gallante bs 5 for it and leave the missile pve scene not even running incursions.

Its damage output with plutonium or uranium which I like to open with for starters after a mjd jump is nice. And on kronos I can make even CN/FN ammo a reasonable splurge buy. And best of all most times even in rokh small crap instapops at 100kms (at 100kms you basically wipe tracking out of the equation, rats fly in straight). No more going rat a is 2 volleys of this, rat b 3 volleys of that, etc. When crap vaporizes it can be just a matter of feeding new targets.



Only case I have seen reported where this actually works out is golems in lv 5's where they can snipe the neut towers even longer range before (hopefully) the rats in the lv 5 reach you.

Can also say even with varying split damage we can have good debates on mach versus golem for angel, NM versus golem for em rats, etc. Those gun boats with all their "limitations" do not have missile pve boats pulling out so far ahead in a race imo.

tengu only outshines in the t3 realm since its hard to get range and damage from the others (others using guns, tengu being its way more common hml/ham setup). Its not a case of being good here. It really a case of somehow being able to run in the special olympics not having a disability of some kind imo.
Meyr
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-01-11 14:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Meyr
No one with two brain cells that rub together is arguing that missiles don't need a buff, and, once the ship balancing pass is done, I'm pretty sure that will be short-listed.

That said, you can't ignore the advantages missiles already have over turrets in consistency of damage application and set aside the fact that whatever an opponent in a PVP situation can do to mitigate missile damage will also mitigate turret damage, with the glaring exception of travel time at sniping ranges (it could be argued that this is the missile equivalent of turret falloff, hit quality, and missing).

In terms of pure DPS numbers, missiles are not so far off of turrets, and, since they have selectable damage types, those numbers are actually much closer than they would appear at first glance. Look at HML damage from a Caracal and compare it to a Thorax equipped with 250mm railguns using Lead (average ammunition for range/damage) at optimal, and then at falloff (50% damage reduction). Then, note the effective range of those HML's on the Caracal (far beyond the Thorax's falloff). Also, understand that the Caracal's DPS numbers are far closer to actual application, since it has a damage bonus that's not restricted to one damage type, and the Thorax is limited to thermal/kinetic. Add in that the Caracal can reliably hit targets inside of the Thorax's tracking (setting aside target painters and webifiers, which benefit both weapon systems).

Both of these ships are used in PVP, both small gang, and some sizable fleets, and in PVE (the Rail Thorax having made a recent re-appearance in missions). It's also fair to note that the HML Caracal need not gimp its tank to a great degree, while a Thorax with 250's must compromise its fit to pretty much 'glass cannon' status.

Yes, if you graph DPS from a Thorax, it will exceed that of the Caracal, but it is shaped like a bell curve, whereas the Caracal's will be a flat line, and greater than the Thorax's over much of that range (I'm doing this on my iPad, so I don't have Pyfa handy to create one - sorry).

Yes, I'm arguing that missiles don't need a separate 'damage application module', but not without reasons.

That said, if they are planning upon creating one, it should be just like a Tracking Computer, mid-slot, active, and have a low-slot Tracking Enhancer-like alternative. However, Turret Disruption should affect missiles, decreasing flight time (making missile guidance more inaccurate over time) and alter explosion radius/velocity in a negative manner, with the option to be scripted like they are for turrets.

You can't ask for a module to enhance damage application without accepting an opponent's option to disrupt it. Otherwise, the Caracal above becomes ridiculously overpowered and imbalanced.
Meyr
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-01-11 14:26:41 UTC
And, Zan - basing an argument for or against a particular weapon system upon how Marauders perform is simply ridiculous.

Use a Drake and a Brutix, a Raven and an Hyperion, or, like I did, a Thorax and a Caracal.

Using a niche-use ship class as a tool to justify your argument just shows how sadly broken Marauders still are.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#16 - 2014-01-11 15:08:52 UTC
Actaeon Versaea wrote:

A ship module called [Illustrious name here].

Goes in whatever slot the balancing slot the chaps at CCP think best - possibly high as most missile boats have spare high slots


LOLno.

Quote:

While activated the following effects are applied to targeted ships only:

  • Explosion Radius is decreased by 30%-50% depending on meta level of the module.
  • Explosion Velocity is increased by 50%-70% depending on meta.
  • Max target count reduced by 2
  • Targeting speed takes 50%-35% longer, depending on meta (To acquire the 'more accurate,' firing solution)



So in exchange for making torps hit like light missiles or something, targetting would be a slight pain in the ass? No, those bonuses are way too high, and there doesn't need to be a penalty.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-01-11 15:11:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme more Cynos
Meyr wrote:


That said, you can't ignore the advantages missiles already have over turrets in consistency of damage application and set aside the fact that whatever an opponent in a PVP situation can do to mitigate missile damage will also mitigate turret damage, with the glaring exception of travel time at sniping ranges (it could be argued that this is the missile equivalent of turret falloff, hit quality, and missing).



That is actually not true.

Moving towards (or away from an oponent) with 0 transversal doesn't affect turrets at all. Missiles however suffer a loss from it.

Also, damage application is not consistent for missiles. Target starts to move ==> damage changes, Target lights AB/MWD ==> damage changes. Target gets webbed --> damage changes etc.etc.

Also, missiles can be outrun (longe range not so much). While you can outrun turrets double falloff too, turrets have the ability to increase their range. Short-Range missiles don't (except for rigs - which are to expensive for a hilariously small increase in range).

I agree with you that missiles aren't that dramatically bad as some people might claim, but saying "missiles are fine because they rock PvE" (which isn't correct either) is a kind of provocation towards missile users.

As for your idea about disruption --> If you want to have missiles affected by all kinds of E-War, you really need to get rid off Firewall and Defenders (defenders atleast!) in my opinion aswell. Shouldn't be a big deal I think.
Chrom Shakiel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-01-11 15:26:14 UTC
What about a low slot ballistic computer that instead of flat out buffing one or two values, it would instead convert a fixed percentage value of the hulls max targeting range for example 45% and convert that to a gain in chosen tracking value.

So for a standard T1 Caracal/Navy caracal with a max target range of 71,9 KM it would have a decreased range to 39,5 KM but would gain a 45 percentage buff to a chosen tracking value.

At the same time it has sacrificed one low slot for one of these modules sacrificing either a BCU , Nano or DMG control or something else.

If you fit two of these modules you would get a max target range of 21,7 Km with a T1/Navy Caracal.
You could fit a Sebo (script % 60 max target range) to cancel out some of the negative effect of the module but you have then sacrificed a mid slot for the sake of gaining a better max targeting range.

At the same time this has the added value off moving away from expensive rigs for tracking of missiles, freeing up some off the rigs for tank or in some cases where you still need short range missiles to go further then its effective starting range within the max target range.

And it also makes ships with this module fitted more vulnerable to Dampeners, and in the case of two modules fitted it becomes more vulnerable to long range disruptor s and also to heavy tackle, since its max dps have been lowered.

It would require some looking on a bunch of other hulls but it would only need the adjustment of max target range for those hulls so it wouldn’t be too complicated.

Fitting requirements would be around 60 TF so you either need another low slot or rig for cpu.
This module would be more effective than two T2 Tracking rigs freeing up at least two rigs so you could regulate how many rigs you would have free with the requirements of cpu for the module.
Actaeon Versaea
#19 - 2014-01-12 01:03:07 UTC
Meyr wrote:
Not that missiles need a buffing module (yes, yes, we all know that they need some 'adjusting'), but:

If you're going to make something that will be the missile equivalent of a Tracking Computer, then it should, like a Tracking Computer, be a mid-slot module, and active, with a smaller-bonused, inactive low-slot alternative.

I've said before, and will re-state:

"If you want missiles to be the PVP equal of turrets, then you'd damned well better be ready to put up with some of the negatives that come with it!"

1. Disruption. Yes. This. You want a bonus module, then Turret Disruptors get adjusted to affect missiles, too. This would REALLY **** off all of the missile-boat mission-runners currently laughing when they get tracking-disrupted.

2. Missing. Your guidance systems are no longer as precise as they currently are. You have the chance to MISS, even when you should hit. Hey, drones can miss, turrets can miss, why not join in on the fun?

3. Hit Quality. Your damage is affected by a random modifier, just like turret hits. "Your group of cruise missiles hits for (1/3 normal damage) (Graze)". Think you'll like seeing that?

Hey, you want to be more like turrets in ONE aspect of weapon usage, you get some of the penalties, too.


Before I respond, I haste to respond to all people that my OP mentions "The numbers are just examples to communicate the point that it is meant to make missiles comparable to turrets, not what they necessarily should be." No, I don't balance Video games for money. :D

Although I see where you are coming from with these, if CCP were to implement all of these, missiles would just become delayed damage projectile turrets, which really defeats the purpose of missles' existence (to provide an alternate weapons mechanic to turrets), and would due to delayed damage be slightly OP-- unless missiles hit like a kick to the groin by, as one poster pointed out, with reguard to my OP, torpedoes one vollying cruisers (Again, just a example... dont actually want this)

For me, the best thing about missles - why I use them, is the almost complete invulnerability to EWar... Apart from Gruistas' ECM, which is annoying..

.. I think even with the missile re-pass CCP just needs to tweak the numbers of missiles AND launchers, not completely redesign the whole system.