Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I was referring more to the Lack of manual input needed to make missiles work, with a weapon system that always hits they're either OP if they apply good damage or garbage if they don't. there's really no middle ground. fix that part instead.

that being said I do think all weapons should lose damage selection.

drones- EM / Therm.... they don't use ammo
projectiles- kin / exp..... they're bullets
missiles- either kin / therm or kin / exp.

I do think that the future of missiles should be a greater difference between short and long range and the way they do damage. Personally, I like my idea whereby long range missiles at short range deal less damage because kinetic energy. That, however, is an issue with mechanics and not application so to stay on topic I will say that I like the idea of reducing the nerf to explosion velocity for heavy missiles as, at the least, a temporary solution.
I am cautious to get into the question of damage type, that is a very involved problem that is not to be taken lightly. IF missiles were to see a change in damage type, I think there are many ways to approach it. You could lock all missiles, with few exceptions, into kinetic and 1 other for game balance, or you could apply some basic logic and pair kin/exp and therm/EM. This would open the door for a different type of scripted TC for missiles, similar to wire guided torpedoes/missiles, where the TC can boost one damage type. Think of it as the TC guiding the missile for a better kinetic hit and less exp, or more exp and less kinetic. Just a thought, could be good or it could be very bad.
To get back on topic, I would very much like to see what the devs think of the state of missiles, both in general and each type specifically. Do the devs think that heavy missiles, and all missiles really, are actually balanced because theyre "easy" and will always do some damage? Or have they not found the time/right solution to make a constructive change?
Also, if the devs are short on time, what do they think about crowdsourcing? Their are plenty of people, as we have seen time and time again on the forums, who have both the time and inclination to test detailed scenarios, is this a resource they do/should tap for complex issues?
I'm going to go back and reread the OP before class and, when I have time, edit so this will be a relevant post instead of filler.

(Lots of questions, I know, but it is my hope that we will get the attention of someone who can answer our questions)

Edit: Just reread the OP and I feel a bit silly. My long post several pages back was basically an unknowing rephrasing of the OP. I've had the idea for a while so it came to mind while reading the thread, by the time I got to the page of my post I suppose I had forgotten the OP. So, I feel a tad silly. Moving on.... I like the OP, of coure or I wouldn't have proposed a similar idea, but I propose 1 tweak. That tweak being that instead of flight time, a long range missile should do damage as a function of velocity. Why? Picture a missile slowly catching up to a small, orbiting target. If damage is a function of flight time that missile will either run out of fuel or hit for a lot of damage even if it is traveling relatively slowly. I propose that, since there is a hidden acceleration, missiles should make use of it. (Kinda like the "new" warp mechanics, max velocity is the same, the change is how quickly you reach it) It would be even better if they inherited their initial vector from the firing ship. +1 OP, good job.

Actually missiles in space would only be kinetic, warheads become completely superfluous when considering the sheer velocity they can accumulate in a friction-less environment. and EVE missiles have a set speed of 4.5-6km/s.... that a telephone pool going 5 times faster than our fastest bullets.

anyway was just say'n from a balance perspective, why do all the capless weapon systems also get damage selectivity.

NO IT DID NOT, low earth orbit is about 7km/s. any man made thing going 11km/s in the stratosphere would be vaporized. matter in fact going to start doing math I think 11km/s is about escape velocity.

Mach 11 sounds a bit better, but still absurd.

and I'd like to make something abundantly clear. speed is a real slippery term when talking about space. the important question is velocity relative to what? in EVE everything is on a stationary grid, in space that's not really the case.

oh and yeah at those velocities pebbles will hit with the energy of our biggest tank shells.

The kinetic part of a missile would be anything like a shaped change to punch a hole in an armored structure to expanding rod in anti-air missile sending chunck of metal in all direction to punch holes in relatively fragile planes.

A purely kinetic missile works just fine. It merely has to directly impact the target to do anything. Plenty of kinetic energy there, especially if its traveling at several thousand m/s. This is how armor piercing rounds work. Railguns also work like this. They simply throw a mass at a target with as much relative velocity as possible.

Missiles work even better in space because in space there is no atmosphere to drag on the projectile and slow it down. So missiles can achieve much higher velocities before running out of propellant. In addition, since there is no atmosphere, puncturing the skin of a space craft causes it to vent atmosphere, possibly killing any crew and passengers.

A big flashy explosive detonation would not work well in space because in the vacuum of space there is no medium through which a shockwave can travel. Shrapnel from the missile case or warhead and super-heated expanding gases would be projected outwards and could cause significant damage at close range.

In the event of a direct impact from an explosive round, they would work just fine. In this case, you would prefer a shaped-charge or HEAT warhead to direct as much of the energy of the explosion at the target, rather than letting it blow harmlessly into the surrounding vacuum.

Nuclear detonations would project tons of high energy EM radiation over extremely long ranges. But again, without a medium for the expanding mass to push against, there would be almost no shockwave and any kinetic or thermal energy would dissipate very quickly. US Air Force testing of high altitude nukes have proven this.

So how does all of this translate into Eve? Well, for a purely kinetic missile, a faster-flying missile would do more damage than a slower one with the same mass. Since that missile has to actually accelerate to that speed, the higher the missile's velocity at its time of impact the higher its applied damage up to its maximum flight time, at which point it simply expires.

From an application standpoint, certain damage types could care more about velocity than others. For eve we can translate this into low or higher base damage and better or poorer acceleration, or even more or less mass. So rather than having damage application based on sigRad/expRad and/or expVel/vel, it would be based more on classical methods that scale in relation to relevant eve-o stats. Big missiles would accelerate slowly. But having longer flight times means they would deal excellent damage at long ranges while doing terrible damage at short range. Smaller missiles would accelerate quickly and have lower base damage. But that damage would apply well at much closer ranges.

Certain damage types could depend less on velocity than others. For example, an EM bursting missile really should give a whit about how fast the missile is going. Explosive I think would be another type that cares less about velocity and more about raw damage potential, since it would be something like a shaped-charge HEAT round or EFP. Thermal missiles would then be 2nd to kinetic in velocity effect on damage.

Since missiles with a long flight time and higher acceleration would only reach maximum damage at maximum range, they would then be candidates for long range ammo. Meanwhile, something that doesn't care so much about velocity at impact would be a better candidate for short-range ammo (less acceleration) and should have a higher base damage.

So it seems to me that we have cases for several different variations on ammo in every size category. We already have some idea of how this works because some of our current missiles are based on these premises.

You know, if it wasnt too much server load missiles could be given a flight time and an acceleration attribute - and no max speed. They get faster the longer they're in flight. Might help a little with the whole "oh, red boxed by a raven/cerberus...best align out and warp off before I get hit" thing.

However what would be easier is morduing them ALL in base stats (and leaving mordus bonuses in place)

For me, the only good thing about HML is that my tengu can do lvl 4 missions with faction ammo and get 100k range so I don't have to chase stuff down. Basically, I'm lazy lol.

As far as pvp goes, I really don't do it often as I am only a few years into the game and seems that when I do try PvP I die before I even make it thru peoples shields. I guess the only thing I've noticed is that missile seem to be for PvE and nothing else. Definitely a joke in PvP and is why I made an alt to fly gunships for PvP. I've tried HAM and RL during PvP but still fall short. And yes, I do have maxed missile skills along with maxed shield skills. Even with that I pretty much never win PvP using missiles. Maybe I suck or maybe missiles could use a little love. IDK.

I don't think, the damage calculation for this would cause any further load on the server. It would be roughly the same amount, as existing weapon systems do today.
Just take the distance to target, when missile is fired. For example, if you know your target is 100km away and you fire a missile at it, if you know the set acceleration of the missile, you'll know what velocity the missile will have in 100km distance.

Yes, ideally you would have to take into account the flight time of the missile and the velocity of the target. Until the missile hits its target, the distance to it, could have changed. But, to keep things simple, you could just ignore this step.

The only thing it would do would encourage long range missiles to be used at long range. The general consensus, among those that agree with the OP, is that the damage would stay the same as it currently is, but cruise missiles at 5km would be less effective than cruise missiles at 100km. (For example)

On another note: The AC balance thread must have been noticed by someone, given the changes coming in the next release. Any guesses as to how many more release cycles we'll have to sit through before someone decides to un-nerf heavy missiles?
Maybe we'll see something useful being done when the Caldari T3 Destroyer is released. Or, and I think that this is more likely, the Caldari T3 will be a hybrid platform and CCP will go on ignoring us.