Player Features and Ideas Discussion

because hitting warp nukes your missiles. Has done this for 11 years now.

Working as intended.

mechanics of the game, such that you would otherwise be able to still be "shooting" things after you've warped off (because missile flight time).

This has cost me a few kills over the years. My solution was to train up Gunnery support skills

Couldn't you just use that to argue against every improvement ever made?

Honestly, I see no reason missiles should go away after you warp off other than coding simplicity. While one could say that it allows you to gank people and get away while the missiles are flying, this is kind of a moot point when guns can do their damage instantly. I really don't see how this could screw up balance, it would just require some strategic rethinking on the pilot's part.

Cloaked gang of stealth bombers aligns, decloaks, fires torpedos, warps off. The target dies and there is nothing anyone can do about it. That's why.

oh, so like launching bombs on a gate then?

Filed under, "Explanations that make zero sense." There's nothing outsized about the alpha of missiles that makes that a problem that would need solving in such a clumsy fashion, the "mechanic" has existed much longer than bombers have (especially in their current form), and that's PRECISELY what bombers do with bombs.

That's the kind of cunning strategy that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the game, its mechanics, and its math might come up with after being lobotomized.

There's nothing special about missiles that would be applicable to this strategy. Tornadoes would do VASTLY more alpha, that would be instantly applied, would be far less avoidable, and could be used at comparable ranges.

This would be true REGARDLESS of whether or not missiles failed when you warped. They would STILL be inferior for the kind of strategy you described.

If I replace "missile boats" with "gun boats" I make your blob better in every regard, so explain, again, what problem you imagine missile-poof fixes?

None of that, mind you, is to suggest that the core concept is particularly sound. I mean, you've engineered a scenario where one side has both a sheer numbers advantage and a damage application advantage, but that should really illustrate why this "concern" is so utterly bullshit: You fabricated this scenario where you gave one side every advantage as a means of demonstrating why non-poofing missiles would be "OP", and yet, if we just find-and-replace "missile boat" -> "Gun boat" the strategy becomes objectively more powerful than it could ever be with missiles.