Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Considering there are 2086 kills by capsules on that list I think it's safe to say the ship list isn't a good list to see if a weapon system is working corectly, unless harsh language in the chat box is considered a valid weapon system as well.

btw the hound is there as well at number 10.

The weapon list is a bit better,

6 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 1,770


incombination with the Manticore and Hound tells that there is nothing wrong with the Stealth bomber.


[Sarcasm]so if all missiles systems get 175% damage, 100% range 50% explosion velocity a covert ops cloak without targeting delay, the missile problem si solved [Sarcasm off]

The Tengu is also a good ship, but that doesn't change missiles are flawed.

The Tengu gets a range, rof and a damage bonus.


it it tells exacly that there is a need or 3 direct weapon bonuses or a missiles ship to be in the top 20.

that points out the problem or me.

the Caracal is out after the RLIML change, no longer being able to compete.

an other thing that comes to mind when looking at the ships still in tn the list is the high survivability.

They need to fix heavy missiles first and then use their stats as a baseline for other missiles.

This^^^. That ugly looking green thing capable of carrying numerous webbing drones, mwd, multiple webs and heavy neuts should be banned forever! It's totally unacceptable that a cheap flying brick is able to threaten and completely overpower my ten times more expensive 100mn Tengu. OP!! OP!!! OP!!!! Nerf it to the ground please..

I sure do wish the QENs were still around.

actually ccp took flightime and gave flightspeed to most missles (all?) not too long ago
and to be honest its not that bad anymore (and remember delayed damage can be used to confuse the enemys logistic , but it will suck if you try to use missles as turret alternative .. missles are missles , drones are drones , guns are guns they all have their up and down sides)
I can agree to some degree that heavy missles need to be brought back into balance (maybe decreas explosion sig ,increase explosion velocity ,keep damage) but hms shouldnt be the starting point , as the other missle systems have been edited allready (and not to the worse) . If there is one missle system that is awfull its citadell missles.
Also i donot think that the current kb stats do mean alot , there are cruisemissle typhoon and raven fleets in use as well as hm cerbs (DD,PL,INIT) . And there have been Ham tengus (Goons) too . Yes ,they might not lead the charts but they are there and they are beeing used in big fights .

I would like to see the following changes to missles : add "tracking mods" / make them vulnerable to tds , edit the citadel missles to become a decent weapon system , maybe improve autotarget missles (maybe even add new "beeper" and "seeker" missles ? (missles equivalent of drone asignment))

The problem here is that Heavies and HAMs were specifically nerfed to counter a broken hull: The Drake.

Drake's been nerfed, CCP. And Navy drake is so expensive you're not likely going to see blobs of it being used nearly as much as the old drake.

So yeah, return heavies to what they were, buff HAMs a wee bit (explosion speed needs help) and we're in business. Torps can't be touched due to SB issues, Cruise were finally buffed, and lights and rockets are finally worth half a damn.

Also fix the ugly turrets on the Malediction, please?

It's probably been said hundreds of times the thing I think missiles lack is explosion velocity bonus the explosion radius of missiles in my eyes appears to be relatively well balanced I just seem to lose too much damage when ships start to speed off.

I started a thread in Jita Park Speakers corner to outline some of the problems with the Missiles weapon system as it stands. Please talk to your CSM representative about bringing up a discussion on a full Missiles rework to make the system viable. It needs more than just a quick balancing pass, and that's all I see happening at the moment.

Here's the link, which goes into a lot more detail.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=294382&find=unread

Some of the points have been made, but the main ones I see are:

The current SP imbalance, now even more evident since Gunnery has had the skill requirements decoupled, means you are spending almost 2 SP in missiles compared to 1 SP in Gunnery for a weapon system which has support skills that only affect one, instead of three.

The lack of a proper progression for missile ships. You basically have to train all races to be able to use missile ships effectively. For example, if you start as a Minmatar player, and you pick up the Breacher, Bellicose, Cyclone.. where do you go for Interceptors, Assault Frigates, HACS, Recon Ships, etc? The only T2 Minmatar ships which use missiles are the Hound and the Claymore. Every race has a stealth bomber, and Command Ships aren't commonly used.

Fixing the damage application formula to be more balanced for signature tanking and speed tanking is another big one. Because you currently need webs and/or target painters to properly apply damage to opponents of the same ship size, and missile ships are most commonly shield tanked, you have to sacrifice tank for damage application.

The ability to decouple reload time from changing missile damage types is something that was brought up in the RLML/RHML thread. The ability to reload the existing number of missiles for a different damage type, or explosion radius (Precision/Fury) could be shorter than reloading the launchers completely. Considering Energy Turrets can change out their crystals with zero reload time, this isn't unreasonable, and would play into the strengths of the weapon system.

The need for scriptable modules to allow missile users to customize the range, explosion velocity/radius, rate of fire, etc. Only having the Ballistic Control System doesn't allow a lot of flexibility outside of rigs, which are static and frequently those slots are needed for other things.

Remove the damage type specific bonuses for more of the hulls. Having one bonus means typically it isn't worth spending 10 seconds to change out the damage to exploit a potential hole in resistances, compared to losing the bonus from the hull.

Revert the RHML/RLML to the earlier version without the swarm launcher, or find a better alternative than a 40 second reload. My main problem with the RHML/RLML was that any addition to the weapon system should play into it's strengths - selectable damage, consistent damage application. The 40 second reload took away one of the main advantages of being able to choose the damage or missile type (Precision/Fury) to hit the opponents for the best damage application. Having a scriptable weapon/module or rig to trade off magazine size versus reload time would have been one way to give more choice to missile users, without restricting new modules to very niche uses.

This idea has some merit.

Why are guns "better"? Well we can argue they have the downside of tracking (or not tracking for misses as the case may be).

If ccp's holdup is the "always" hit of missiles it could be a viable change to get them better. If a lazy drake pilot who likes to land, press f1 and make stuff go boom (maybe pretend to care enough to orbit) their missiles suck more. If they adapt and go jsut a bit beyond this it works out for them.

Even has a working model in game. Even if jumped in a cane by a smaller ship (to include same class but lower sig radius) I will care enough to try and fly it well to at least attempt to work better traversal gaming to get more shots on target.

Hate to oversimplify flying a drake but since it currently does not factor in angles in anyway it can literally be autoorbit, pop drones, press f1 and go get a drink from the fridge and see what you got when you come back. Sig radius of the usual passive/buffer fit is not faking out gun tracking short of caps and higher or maybe a low skill/ crapfit bs. And your missiles always hit...actually moving around a bit is purely optional unless going against another missile boat.

The extent to which your post, or more precisely your link, was counter productive to the point you were trying to make is amazing.