Player Features and Ideas Discussion

When missiles are effective enough to actually need e-war.
No need to make missiles worse without making them better first.

I don’t think Defenders are the answer to mitigating missile damage here.

Turret damage can be mitigated by ECM, damps, and TP’s. A turret ship pilot can fit ECCM, Sebos, tracking computers, and turrets with high tracking to counter this.

Missile damage can be mitigated by ECM, damps, and defenders. A missile ship pilot can also fit ECCM and Sebos, but can’t do anything about defenders.

Defenders are unique (and terrible) in that they require ammunition and a regular missile launcher – none of the other counter measures have this requirement, and there are plenty of ships out there that can’t fit a missile launcher at all.

What is needed is a new mid slot module – call it a “Missile point defence” module. It would represent something like the Phalanx CIWS LINK used today, but with lasers to explain the lack of an ammo requirement.

Each module fitted should be capable of engaging a certain number of missiles per second (so it can be overwhelmed by large numbers of incoming missiles) and have a percent chance of destroying each missile engaged. It should be possible to load scripts which give it a better chance of destroying different types of missiles (small / medium / large?) at the cost of reduced chance of destroying the un-scripted types. The module cycle time should be long enough to prevent rapidly switching scripts – this makes the script choice a bit more important.

The number of missiles that each module can engage should be limited, something like 10 small, 6 medium or 3 large (modified by scripts).

Very importantly, the speed of the ship mounting the system should have a negative impact on the chance to destroy incoming missiles. This means that very fast ships that already mitigate lots of missile damage do not benefit as much from this module.

Missile pilots still cannot directly counter this through their fiting choices like turret pilots can, but at least they can overwhelm it with numbers or play mind games with script choices.

Higher meta versions would be able to engage more targets or have a better chance of destroying a missile, or even have a better base chance of destroying one type but worse for others, etc

As for defenders, they should be either removed from the game or given a different role. They could be given a "Fleet Defence" role if they were changed into something like a mini FOF missile that only targeted enimy missiles, or maybe drones as well. This option would be hell on the hamsters so probably not a good idea.

Just my 2c.

Has there been any feedback, from CCP, since the deployment of these modules?

In combination with the introduction of the stacking penalties?

This.


Or probably half jest/half truth.....they'd have to be used en masse to have something to say about it really lol. Saw em, eft'd them, ran them a little and....said well let me put that TP back on as well I have maxed skills for them and just one tp seemed to fair pretty good against what was becoming a 1 mid 1 lo slot missile mod fit.

For how I run my ships....range was never an issue I needed fixing tbh. Range was not a missile issue, to me and many others I assume. I will even state, again, I'd have given the caveat of less range to boost the stats I do care about. And the 2 slots was too deep a tradeoff when tp did me fine with just 1 slot (assuming typical 1 tp fit, not say golem).

Did a rather unscientific study here for proof of heavy use. Googled say tengu fit and looked for new mods used. Cricket cricket. Saw fits prepatch galore. very few saying omfg yes......run these new mods. I tbh fit blind here and just swapped crap....I could not find a front runner to be the new "vanilla" fit with these to be a base to work from.

When marauders got bastion....google would find these edge out old school marauders hit wise not even asking for it in the query as a comparison.

My off the cuff evaluation of this....people didn't rush to the market for these. They have to be used heavily to be abused or to even make comment.

This is more or less my take on them as well. I did find that when range-scripted these do make torpedoes a more viable option for PvE, but only on certain ships and missions (cruise missiles still reign supreme overall). On Golems two precision-scripted MGCs can replace two of three or four TPs that one typically finds - allowing Hyperspacial rigs to be used for boosting warp speed.

Yes, but the damage application with two meta TPs and two precision-scripted MGCs is greater than four Faction TPs - without the use of rigors or flares, either (you can one-shot frigates using T2 Fury ammunition, V skills and missile implants). The problem with torpedoes is that they're just so freakin' slow. Even with hydraulics, range-scripted MGCs and Bastion you're hard-pressed to get the speed above 6km/sec. So shooting out to targets @80km with Javelin torpedoes is literally like watching paint dry.

Surprisingly enough, you don't need as much damage application with torpedoes because they do a lot more damage than cruise missiles. What I found is that a pair of MGCs to alternate between range-boosting and damage application in conjunction with a pair of target painters worked best. I've since switched back to cruise missiles because even with the slower rate of fire I almost never have to maneuver around and am rarely forced to use Bastion.

If torpedoes were twice as fast as cruise missiles - then we'd be talking.

This is the one sole issue I have with torps on something like a Golem (or anything for that matter) at this point. For me, the projection, not application, is the more problematic situation regarding torpedoes. And, since Rubicon and these modules, I would say that largely projection overall is in a much better place with the idea of a torp Golem, but the missile velocity when I ran the numbers in Pyfa when these modules were first announce, my jaw literally dropped. Cruise missiles on my build WITHOUT projection rigs or MGC's hit nearly 14km, and torps WITH projection rigs and MGC's barely make less than half that. Oddly, I had halfway thought I would have disliked the application numbers more so that range, but they were in fact fine, even compared to Cruises the raw damage largely makes the weaker application seem pretty irrelevant as long as you are in range to hit.

I know I would likely switch to torps on my Golem in a heartbeat if CCP were to trade flight time for velocity evenly to maintain the same ranges but give a little more speed to the damn things (fingers are crossed). I would even start using MGC's more often to boot, too. I just wish they weren't so seemingly niche, but either CCP is fine with where they are or at the very least don't have enough data to go off of. The MGE's are still another story and, quite honestly, could be scrapped for all I care. They may just leave them in anyways for consistency's sake.

That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen.
Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..

IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..

Now, hit reload...

Granted, Snake drones do well even on their own, but I've never seen a rapid launcher build for PVE work I've liked. Also, Snakes use to be nothing but tank because we didn't always have drone mods to throw in the lows or good reasons for BCSs and fewer drone mods to throw in the mids that made sense, so more room for SPRs and Extenders. They can still tank, but can now serve up some nice Vindi-level woop-ass too.