Player Features and Ideas Discussion

All missiles have a problem. Not just the cruise, torps etc.

First, speed of the target and signature radius affect missile damage immensely. If it is high enough it can completely reduce it to 0 (zero) damage. It doesn't matter if you "hit" if there is no/negligble damage.

Missile mechanics for flight and range are screwed up. Presently missiles operate on a constant and instant max-velocity system. As far as any of us that actually use missiles can tell. Now, beyond the fact that is retardly unrealistic, it is also a problem. The problem is the insanely long flight time attributes. The main reason why nobody in their right mind snipes with missiles.

Though part of that is also the ROF rate of the launchers. Since for missiles DPS = damage/(flight-time + ROF). In other words, missiles are penalized twice in the DPS equation: once for the launcher rate-of-fire and once for the flight time of the missile to the target. In-game this nullifies or marganlizes the higher-base damage of missiles as range is increased.

Again that dps reduction due to the 'double-penalty' doesn't even count the reductions due to target velocity/signature. So in the end you might only be dealing 20% or less of the damage-potential. Turrets will always deal full damage within optimal range as long as tracking. Furthermore, turrets only have a 50% reduction of base-damage within their falloff+optimal.

In translation, even on your worse "day" as a turret user you will always deal more damage than a missile user. As long as both targets are not sitting on top of each other and in motion. Hagika explains that better...
_________________________________________________________________________
The solution to that would be to use an acceleration mechanic like that for ships. Then have it set up so that there is 'consistent' flight time to target within the engagement range of that missile. In other words it should take the same amount of time to hit whether you are close or just in range. The only way to do that is via an equation based on acceleration.

The result of that change would be to reduce/minimize the double-penalty to applied dps. In addition, it would allow for viable and reasonable ability to use missiles for long-range engagements (for that missile). With that in place then the damage of the missiles (base-damage) could be adjusted to bring them into parity with turrets.

I'm an avid missile user....and even I'm tired of the "but I need a target painter"

Deal with it.

Turrets need TE etc and furthermore, find me a turret that can do over 900 DPS from 0-three figure lock range. Good luck with that.


They are different systems, stop comparing them. If there is an issue with missiles in the new incarnation, address it directly and not "waaaa but this other completely different system is different!!!!"


And finally, for the love of GOD stop using the phrases/words "DPS" and "delayed damage" in the same sentence, you look ridiculous. It's delayed alpha, nothing more. The clue is kind of in the name....damage per second.


end rant.

It also means that from a long range they'll be harder to sunwall because they'll move through a smartbomb's envelope very quickly.

Is that a bad thing? Smartbombs are currently to powerfully against missiles. How can a missiles fleet compete if all of the missiles can be smartbomb with just a single ship, which you cant even shoot down?

Plan to destroy missiles in large PvP.
- Let them have a long flight time
- Let them suck at applying dmg
- Let them be vulnerable against smartbombs
- Give them a kinetic-bonus, so we know which type of missiles the hostiles will use

Plz post 1-3 situations where missiles perform good. Would really like to know that, maybe i can fit an proper ship then.

Then let's compare missile to turrets. Show me a turret capable of applying uniform, selectable damage from 0km to over 100km. Show me a turret capable of blowing up an ECM bird when jammed out. They're just different.


You need to understand that if missiles could apply full damage without rigs and painters then they would be unholy monsters because of what those free slots would allow. It may not be nice in terms of the lack of choice, but it's the only way to keep it sane.

Edit: A humble raven without the need for rigs/painters becomes at >110k ehp, 645 DPS from 0-weapon range (faction ammo so that's out to 250km) with fully selectable damage. I dont think that's remotely reasonable and thats BEFORE you consider torps, those are the cruise numbers. Furthermore I was in hurry, that'll be sub-optimal.

Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You need to improve your reading and comprehension skills...

I said, "All missiles have problems". Thus the sentence that you agree and then state certain missiles are fine, doesn't work.

This is a missile thread and I am perfectly founded to post critics of CMLs and every other missile here. Since i know the devs actually might read the criticisms.

Regardless, missiles have inherent damage application issues. Not even counting the insanely long flight times for engagements at our outer limit of effective range. Missiles need to be viable in PvP and on par with turrets. Oh, one more thing FOF missiles are crap. If an ECM boat jams a missile boat, it is just like a turret boat. We can't fire either. FOF missiles could be loaded and fired. However, the mechanics for FOFs are unreliable and do pathetic damage.

A drone boat with drones out would be more effective against a jamming ECM ship.

I personally think that changing missile mechanics to be acceleration based with a consistent/fixed flight time to target would make it easier to balance missiles. Then the explosion radius, explosion velocity and damage values could be adjusted to bring missiles into balance with turrets and in parity.

Remember your turrets do instant damage and don't need a TP. Missiles need multiple TP and Webs (hams and torps) in order to deal full-damage.

So that gives me a great idea! Turrets need to be nerfed in a way that requires them to have to use TC, TE etc to deal full-damage. (*sarcasm*) In seriousness, what is the problem some of you people have in letting other players have a fair ability to engage with their racial weapon-system?

(I could remember this and scream and rant against and drone mechanic improvements. But I am not as childish and vindictive as some of you that like seeing Caldari ships elminated from PvP viability.)

i really dont want to do math, to show you how missiles sucks compare to turrets. Lets just say, if missiles are that great, why nobody uses them?

Unfortunately there are far too many people who truly believe that they should be doing 100% of their EFT DPS to their targets in pretty much all situations. I don't understand whether it's an absurd form of entitlement syndrome, or whether they just can't understand how to use the correct combination of weapons and modules in the appropriate circumstances.

I mean, look at Bucca's post on the previous page. It's just a series of statements about whether or not full damage is applied in a series of artificial situations. There's no mention of the actual % damage or the actual damage numbers, no discussion of the realism of the situations, no discussion of the synergy with the launch platform and combat environments and no comparisons to other ships in the class. It's just so lazy, so stupid.