Ships & Modules

That is exactly what I wanted to say!

And your point is?

Oh, I get it, they've chosen Drakes because it does 20 times as little dps as lazors, and not because it performs better than the Harbi! Yeah I totally get you now dude.

its got to be separate mods to affect missiles, it just makes no sense compared with damps their scripts and ecm.

By all means give the TD bonus ships a bonus to missile targeting over loaders also, but dont combine them its silly from a balance and eve lore perspective.

tracking disrupter's mess with the ships ability to aim the guns through disruption, a fired missile is its own 'thing', and no we dont want targetable missiles back lol

So what happens when the Drake change goes through and it likely gets bonuses that are more favorable to HAM's? Since they are unguided "dumb" missiles, they'll be immune to a disruption mechanic that effects missile guidance systems as they don't have a guidance system. The same can be said for torpedos, but as it stands they are their own best deterrent as they suck.

/insert witty ham drake overlord remark

Honestly, I doubt any form of ewar that effects missiles will have any real effect on pvp. The ships that attempt to use it in the big fleets will get called primary and be destroyed quickly. Suppose it ends up being a mid slot module, how many of you who engage in solo and small gang pvp will change your current pvp fits to be able to use the module? What will you sacrifice to be able to use it, will you drop your point, web or mwd? Will it even be worth using on a ship that doesn't have a bonus to it's effectiveness? Suppose they introduce a missile jamming ship, which race will get it, what will be the reason and what, if anything, will they have to sacrifice with regard to the current racial ewar ships.

I fly missile boats a lot and I can't really see a missile disruption as being a game changer. I would say it might make ganking mission running missile boats easier, but that isn't difficult now so why bother. I suppose adding a module that fills that ewar hole will make the spread sheet look good, "see we have ewar that effects all weapon systems" but other than balance for the sake of balance I think it's a non issue.

What a crap post nos.

TDs already screw over turret ships. You apprently have no experience with the new Caldari frig usage of TDs. Cry more if they get altered to have some effects on missiles. Missiles are a weapon system that currently have no direct counter. I doubt CCP would put td effects on missiles in game unless they introduced new mods to partially counter. New mods btw which would compete with easy fitting choices shield missile boats currently enjoy (damage in lows, tank in mids).

You say use damps. Damps are not missile specific it a flawed argument. Damps affect turret use the same.

AB? really? First off don't you mean mwd? ABs are for pve (or oversized tech III idiocy). And propulsion mod usage is not missile specific. It has affects on turrets ability to hit you as well.

Missile use is everywhere. It is not just 0.0 drake blobs. Do you operate in lowsec? Plenty of people show up for small gangs in drakes, caracals, etc.

And gues what - They often are tops on killmails if the battle is not at 0km. Know why? Because the blaster, ac and pulse boats are often trying to get in range. The rail, arty, and beam boats are doing less dps at range than the missiles. And the drone boats are two busy messing with the slow interface and drone travel time to target.

There is no specific ewar counter to missiles. There is a specific ewar counter to turrets. Drones can be killed or simply lost if the host ship is forced to warp away. Contrary to your wordy long posts, scale is not the source of the Drake problem. You are more correct when you talk about cost factoring. And that's the whole point with Drakes. No other BCs are doing (or can do) what they do.

As for missiles specifically. This game should no longer give them a pass. If any old joe can fit a td to screw turret use, any old joe should be able to switch scripts and do the same to missiles. Then we'll see a new group of players calling for some changes (i.e. missile users that currently love the td mechanics in their own extra midslot) and finally some reconsideration of the strength on the unbonused use of that ewar module and the game will be better for it.

Which is why you generally don't use TD to cut the range of LR weapons. Damps are better for that regardless of weapon system. It doesn't affect "the same" it affect both systems better, as it should.

If you buff TD, then the TD will obscure the role of Damps. The flexibility in Damps and TD could be argued both ways (turret-missile, or LR-SR). The odd man out is Missile accuracy, which have no transversal modifiers. In order to let TD affect missile "transversal" (accuracy) it needs to have transversal, otherwise you create an inapproachable imbalance.

I guess you could introduce a TD script that only affect the range of guided missiles and a guided missile tracking enhancer. It would be "balanced" as in "corresponding". What purpose would that serve though, beyond placating whimpering and making it easier for Drakeblobs to fire further? The result is bad for you and me but good for Drakeblobs.

Drakeblobs would love 2xBCS / 2xTE setups that fire 120km by giving up two peripheral slots. Slots they have.

If you want to include the accuracy component you have to completely rewrite missiles, so their SR systems actually are affected by accuracy skills, have transversal modifiers, are chance-based, have variation in ammunition ranges and so forth, since those are the variables the TD interplay with. Then we might as well not have different systems at all. They could use the same equation.

It's a world of difference between you not knowing (or not considering) these things and them not existing.

Get it?


Transversal, learn it.

You are raising questions that the citation you comment from is already answering. It affect the systems differently, which in turn make the propulsion mod missile-specific. You just don't understand how, learn.


They are indeed everywhere. There is no problem with them outside cost-effective ships in large gangs though.

I think it's perfectly fair for you to make an argument, but keep your eyes on what you are actually saying. If you see a problem with missiles (or Drakes) in solo, small or medium scale: then talk about that.

I would enjoy that discussion, but you are not making that argument.

Your arguments so far have been: that they exist outside sovfleets and Top20 popularity.

Those arguments are met by "compensate-punish" and "cost-effect". You will never get new answers to those questions.

Large scale have the select problem that all weapon systems volley all sub-capital buffers (outside of some notable exceptions, of which the Drake is not one), and that masks that HML is worst at it because it's good enough in a scale that isn't balanced to the ships in the game. That is the imbalance (scale, to every ship).


Are you running your SR ships in mix-gangs with LR ships? I'm sorry .

You are essentially flying the ships with tactics adapted to other ships.
Clobbering balance will not make poor gang composition or bad FC's good. Period.

You should fly a blaster ship, in a blaster gang with blaster tactics. That's what make the good groups good. It's not divine favour or rocket science. Outside of large scale, it's not necessary for you to adopt projection-buffer tactics as the environment do not assume buffers being volleyed. That's why Deimos can kill Drake until Drake is in fleet-scale and volley their 70x2=140k relative buffers. At which point of course they volley all 140k buffers. Up until that point any fight is about tactical disposition and controlling hostile lynchpins, where the outcome is uncertain: those fights are generally regarded "good" fights. Most people would also regard them "balanced", and would prefer you didn't screw with that.

Look at any RnK movie and you will see that this is the reason they are "interesting" to people. It has more tactical layers than alpha.

You realize the reason Deimos fell out of small-medium popularity was because something like a Tornado would match their transversal so their relative EHP was only 70k, so you only needed 10 odd Tornados to volley the Deimos, right?

That's 10 Tornados (small) doing the job of 70 Drakes (large). See the difference? Learn transversal.


There is no "Drake problem" outside of large gangs.

There's no problem to HAC, there's no problem to BS and there's no problem to other BC (barring Tier 3).

Provide a motive and an argument as to why you belive there is one. Root that argument in mechanics. Then we can talk. Preferrably start a new thread for it and label it something like "Drake balance outside large scale". I'm sure it will catch my attention sooner or later, as i find the topic intriguing.

First of all how do fit all those words in your posts :S


Who said buff TDs? I have been asking for all the non-ecm ewar mods to get a nerf. Then the speicalized ships should get buffed to overcompensate for that nerf.

The buff on TDs would be that they affect missile explosion parameters (as CCP already floated on SISI for a couple weeks) and to affect flight time or missile speed. It would have nothing to do with guided or unguided. And if the mods are prenerfed for use on unbonused ships then nbd. What are you talking about accuracy/tracking for missiles? There are rigs which bonus missile explosion parameters (and painters), yet there are no mods which harm it. Meanwhile there are mods and rigs which bonus turret tracking, and there are the same which harm it. There's your present imbalance.

It wouldn't hurt damps. Damps affect lock range or speed. One could use damps to force ships closer or TDs. The two systems do not fight each other. They just operate differently. And they each have a script that is not range based and does not do anything near the same thing. You seem to think people only use damps for lock range reduction and TDs for optimal reduciton.

As for 120km Drakes, any introduction of range mods for missiles would I'm sure come with a base range reduction on missiles. Sure if one were to rig and fit a missile ship for range and slight damage potential then so what if that drake could hit 120km. It wouldn't be doing 400dps at 120km because it would not be fitting bcus.

Yeesh if I can stay up, I'll get to the rest of your post.

Propulsion mods are not weapon specific. If you are getting hit you can burn out of the range of either turrets or missiles. If you want to reduce tracking increase the angular motion such that the turrets can't track. If you want to reduce missile damage move faster. Propulsion mods can be used to mitigate damage from either system. All you mentioned was ABs. Unless you're flying an AHAC or 100mn Tech III most people are fitting mwds, yet you did not mention them.



Ok so you just declaring there is no Drake advantage outside of Drake blobs makes it true? Sorry no. Drakes get use everywhere and they do out damage or equal damage to other ships. Meanwhile they are doing that sporting a better tank than their fleet mates.



And yeah, I'm presently flying in mixed small gangs with a noobish fw alt with other non-elite folks and against other non-elite folks. You want the game to just be monoculture fleets or gtfo? How boring. But you apparently want the game to stay with no specific anti-missile platform. God forbid anyone should cut down the range on a missile or fubar it's ability to inflict damage. Meanwhile have at it with anyone and everyone fitting a TD and screwing the idiot that is still using turrets.

Besides this is not relevant to whether TDs could use some missile scripts.

Try looking at the issue from the perspsective of a noob who is sorta stuck training one race. Now if he trains Caldari, Gallente, or Minmatar he can train an ewar that is not weapon specific. He will have an ewar that can do something against whatever he encounters. It may not be the best ewar for that situation but it will do something to help his gang. But if he trains Amarr and TD he will be a fifth wheel if he encounters a drake gang. Seems pretty imbalanced to me.

No, it doesn't. Smarties are really better as anti-drone than anti-missile. Poeple just resort to smarties (and you need some skilled pilots and piloting to hope to make it work) because it's the only thing possibly kill missile spam. It is a less than ideal solution to a gap in the mechanics of the game.

Only one system enable you to use propulsion mods to re-mitigate damage.

That makes how they are affected by both AB and TD different.

Read Hrett's and Deuno's posts, they are also giving you examples.

My last post was aimed at trying to get you to understand that how things operating in two directions also can give you two different results. Look at it like this:

A) Apply TD to Missiles without concern to the difference of systems, and small-medium scale Missiles will be affected alot more than Turrets. They can't counter TD with MWD, AB, ammunition or tracking enhancers (as they have no transversal). Large scale will be unaffected since EW-application mean little there.

B) Apply TD to Missiles with a concern to the difference of systems and you will have a balanced result in small-medium scales, but you will actually make missiles stronger in the large scale (since the TD are not effective at that scale, while any buffs to the missiles are likely to be - such as guided missile tracking enhancers).

Both scenarios are more imbalanced than what we have today. Thus they are bad. Transversal go in two directions so it balances itself, in a sense. If you don't have transversal you go in no direction, that's what make Missiles equally "dumb" regardless if you apply it offensively or defensively. It also balances itself. You need to understand both directions though.

If you don't understand how the game works (1), then you don't see the differences in the weapon systems (most notably, the drawbacks in the missile systems) (2), because you only fly a limited amount of tactics based around HML (3). That results in you percieving an imbalance with missiles that you want to punish (4). Hence you'd prefer (A).


You say "monoculture fleets are boring" yet you don't seem to understand that uniform fleets containing different ships (such as building a fleet concept around blasters) enable different families of tactics. That's what make those ships worth using. You don't see that because you don't fly those tactics.

To me, the game will be alot more boring if every tactic is the same (projection-buffer). That's why i don't really like large fleets because there is not enough tactical variation. The tactical element lie elsewhere at that scale, in resource-management and the like.

That's also why i hate things like Tier 3 BC, because that took a whole family of tactics (mobile-sniping), used on essentially all sizes in the game (frigates, cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships), over all races with many different classes - and created a "master class". From a perspective of diversity and experiencing different tactics, it's so god damned stupid. All those mobile snipers were good against Drakes - they were just never popular, experienced by many.

If a player's experience in EVE is limited to large-scale or mix-gang, he only have the tactical understanding of projection-buffer. To gain experience with other systems you need to do what the "elite folks" do: fly other ships in other gangs that use other tactics.

The experience they gain from that is what make them "elite" in EVE. How they approach that knowledge is what make them "elitist" or not.


Since you're still not getting it, let me quote a single line from the first citation again, and give it a new angle:

How do you reduce tracking and increase angular motion of a ship that is faster than you?

You need to understand that Turrets are a double-edged sword, but it's still a sword and has edges.

Missiles are a blunt weapon. Wether Turrets are better or worse largely depend on you.