These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Aegis] Missile balance package

First post First post First post
Author
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#981 - 2015-07-30 21:53:46 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Not so sure of that, given the MGC/MGE is a relatively new module addition where as these issues have mostly been observed prior to and continue to happen regardless of the modules' presence. It doesn't seem to matter if you are using them or not, and I doubt they are to blame either.

And I completely forgot that the vast majority of missile players aren't using them... Twisted

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#982 - 2015-07-31 13:46:26 UTC
Just wish CCP would just get over with it and fix the base application stats of heavy missiles. The new modules are lousy, and not really viable for use on any ship platform intended for using heavy missile launchers.
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#983 - 2015-07-31 14:05:04 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Just wish CCP would just get over with it and fix the base application stats of heavy missiles. The new modules are lousy, and not really viable for use on any ship platform intended for using heavy missile launchers.


They're fleet modules that relieve effort from individuals in having to paint their own targets (and lost painter hits due to server ticks) not to mention that their benefit scales infinitely across the whole distance of the missiles flight time while painters suffer fall off to 0% in time.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#984 - 2015-07-31 17:36:38 UTC
It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways.

I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#985 - 2015-07-31 18:24:31 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways.

I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already.


Actually, Sir Livingston just posted a video up on his "Eve is Easy" youtube of using an FoF tengu with 2 MGCs...
I commended him for actually finding a viable use for MGCs; Though, it doesn't make FoFs funtional missiles for anything better than burning through HS sites trying to farm out escalations.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#986 - 2015-08-01 03:20:42 UTC
FoF missiles are still completely broken for PVP and have been for over a year. I tested them on Singularity recently, and while being jammed even with valid targets on grid, they refused to fire. An example video of this (not mine):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE

I logged EBR-41489 - Auto-Targeting Missiles Completely Broken - which is attached to an internal CCP bug.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#987 - 2015-08-01 05:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Ransu Asanari wrote:
FoF missiles are still completely broken for PVP and have been for over a year. I tested them on Singularity recently, and while being jammed even with valid targets on grid, they refused to fire. An example video of this (not mine):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE

I logged EBR-41489 - Auto-Targeting Missiles Completely Broken - which is attached to an internal CCP bug.


thats interesting. would be funny if ccp would have overlooked that most of crimewatch is disabled in nullsec and that those auto targeting missiles are basically following crimewatch flags to find targets.

last time i used them in low they worked fine and i was able to hit a keres with a heretic, my main issue was always that they usually went for drones instead of ewar ships. So if you had a few tristans around you and a maulus they where completely ineffective all you did was to kill 2 goblins before exploding

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#988 - 2015-08-01 05:38:03 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways.

I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already.


Well I'll agree with you that I'd have more use from the MGE if it gave mostly just range and very little application. There would be viable builds opened up from like that torp battleships etc.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#989 - 2015-08-01 07:39:37 UTC
Under some more stress tests, the MGC seems to have a small niche on suplimentary dps sniper ships like talwars and kite caracals. If they're willing to go OS prop/ no tank type of setups. The MGE continues to be totally worthless. The bonus is not competitive with a third BCU, nano, or SigAmp for the kite type setups.

just like everyone said when you released the new values. Also, CCP, please hire someone who completed some form of college math course please.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#990 - 2015-08-02 01:34:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
Under some more stress tests, the MGC seems to have a small niche on suplimentary dps sniper ships like talwars and kite caracals. If they're willing to go OS prop/ no tank type of setups.

Quite possibly. Also setups where you need to utilize your rigs to expand your power grid, where you're limited to 2 rigs or only have 350 configuration (examples). I would add the caveat that I don't see MGCs being utilized that much outside of T2 or T3 hulls because you simply don't have the free mid slots and/or can afford to really give up tank.

Two precision-scripted MGCs will net you ~30% explosion radius/~30% explosion velocity, which is roughly equivalent to a pair of T2 rigors and a T2 flare (roughly, mind you - as I realize a setup with rigs provide slightly more damage application). Arguably the MGCs are more cost effective than the T2 rigs, so this is another consideration.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#991 - 2015-08-02 03:27:15 UTC
Exactly, for OS prop setups, they allow a shuffle trade, you give up tank, move your application to mids, move your PG mods to rigs, and gain BCUs. But this is hilariously niche, and leaves you dead if you come up against a turret boat that can track you. Often possible with an eagle that has a single TC in the mid. Which will still be tanked, unlike you. So what's the point?

Mods not worth their slot cost IMO. Need slight buff for MGC and huge buff for MGE.
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
#992 - 2015-08-02 05:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: BN0216 Lim
Basically, I am a heavy PVE user so I almost have no idea about PVP(afaik, I haven't ever seen a missile-based fleet in PVP, just heard some). So, here I'm talking about PVE-biased view.

After I investigated the new modules, I found it is really worthless with the stacking penalty. Rather it is worse than before.

IMO, the critical reason why missiles are useless is all about the sigR problem. And this patch made missiles more harsh to deal with that.

Turrets CAN make a situation to give full damage with their over-sized turrets. When target is not moving (making tracking part 0 even the sigR is small, it does not matter) and target is in optimal range (making range part 0), they can do full damage.

Missiles CANNOT make a situation due to the sigR problem. You cannot make a 40m sigR frig bigger than 137m (EDIT : with an all 5 Level golem, you can make it 201m with meta 4 tp) even if you put ALL the target painters in EVE and your over-sized(cruise or torpedo) missiles have far bigger expR thus cannot do their full damage.



Then, I have no doubt why turrets are preferred since they CAN MAKE the situation and pew pew whatever they want.



The new modules? Good (but honestly IMO, they are somewhat under powered).
The stacking penalties? It made the missile worse than before.
Missile balance patch? How about just delete missile skills and compensate it as free sp. I love missiles and the same time, I am tired to wait the missiles get as useful as the turrets.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#993 - 2015-08-02 06:22:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
But this is hilariously niche, and leaves you dead if you come up against a turret boat that can track you.

Very niche. Like "rare" PvE niche... Just for kicks I took the Tengu configuration from SirLiv's video and tweaked it a bit (Obfuscation Manifold, 3x Faction BCUs/~+6% DPS and a T2 Warhead Calefaction rig to get another ~+5% DPS as this setup only has 3 lows; I dumped T1 Hyperspacials in the remaining slots, swapped the MWD for a Deadspace passive kinetic amplifier and went with Faction HMLs to reduce the power grid requirement). With Ascendancy/Missile implants and full missile skills it was warping along at 9 AU/s and putting out just shy of 600 DPS (600+ DPS pverheated). Faction launchers make a huge difference for FoF missiles as they have a higher rate of fire (even with T2 HMLs/Heavy Missile Specialization V) and hold +5 more rounds of ammunition.

As expected, it worked quite well running pretty much any type of standard HS combat site (then again, it worked fine with rigors prior to MGCs too...). Downside is a huge EM hole and a lot of shiny tied up in a fit with a very low rate of return (not even sure running HS combat sites rates above mining). There's no way I'd sacrifice two mid slots on a Tengu and pooch the tank other than sh*ts and giggles. And we're still talking PvE - nevermind PvP!

BN0216 Lim wrote:
After I investigated the new modules, I found it is really worthless with the stacking penalty. Rather it is worse than before.

IMO, the critical reason why missiles are useless is all about the sigR problem. And this patch made missiles more harsh to deal with that.

Turrets CAN make a situation to give full damage with their over-sized turrets. When target is not moving (making tracking part 0 even the sigR is small, it does not matter) and target is in optimal range (making range part 0), they can do full damage.

If you ran 3x rigors prior it's slightly less effective now in terms of damage application. Thus, a T1 flare is now worth more than a T1 rigor for a third rig. Running either MGCs or MGEs in combination with rigors or flares is only going to see marginal gains (certainly not more than what you're sacrificing in the process).

Let's not go down the turret vs. missile vs. drone path... Turrets can apply full (and more damage), but they also frequently miss (missiles do as well, but not to the same extent). With larger ships and turrets you need a combination of straight vectors, distance or target painters and webs (usually 2/3).

Looking at a few popular examples for ships, would you use a MGC or MGE on (PvE only):

1. Golem. Nope. 2x T2 rigors and 2 TPs allow you to blap most frigates with single Faction volleys. Yes, you have to activate TPs, and yes - there is falloff - but TPs and rigors aren't stacking penalized together, and the Golem gets a whopping +50% TP bonus. Plus it has no low slots and few (if any) mids to sacrifice. Definitely nope.

2. Rattlesnake. Nope. Low slots for a MGE over missile or drone DPS? Nope. Mid slot for a MGC when you need at least one scripted TC for drones? (either range or tracking speed) Nope. Would you run a pair of MGCs to provide range and damage application over utilizing your rigs? Maybe., but unlikely. So a nope.

3. Tengu, Caracal, Cerberus. Yeah, nope, nope and nope. Is there really a scenario where you need more range with any of these setups? Not really. I mean, I guess you could retrofit a Cerberus with HAMs - but the velocity is so slow that you're going to loose so many volleys with an extended range to the point you'd have been better off with HMs and rigors. This applies equally to the Tengu.

4. Raven, Navy Raven and Navy Scorpion. In theory you could use a few of the Navy Scorps mid slots to extend range, but you'd effectively end up with a buffed and more expensive Raven. A more likely scenario is using either a MGE or MGC to make a "poor man's" Navy Raven out of a Raven, since you could probably squeeze out a 20% overall damage application bonus without sacrificing much. Navy Raven? a MGE would offset the new stacking penalty for rigors to some extent such that you'd basically claw back what you lost and maybe gain 5-10% overall damage application previously.

5. Mordus Legion ships. You only need more missile velocity on the Barghest if you need to hit targets out to 395km (and yes, this is technically possible with FoF missiles - although I'm not sure the target would still be on-grid). Mordus ships really have a PvP niche since everything else has better damage application and can be flow for significantly cheaper. An extra low slot or two could certainly be utilized for a MGE, but not at the expense of a DCU or 4th BCU. So maybe, and definitely if you need the slots for Hyperspacial rigs.

6. Either Typhoon. Any halfway decent shield setup precludes the use of MGCs and a hull or armor setup eliminates the possibility of MGEs. So again in theory, maybe - but Typhoons aren't really bonused for PvE use. Again, you could turn a Typhoon into a "poor man's" Raven - but why not just buy a Raven?

I'm sure I've only made a dent and omitted quite a few, but the premise is basically the same: MGCs and MGEs are inherently underpowered.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
#994 - 2015-08-02 07:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: BN0216 Lim
Arthur Aihaken wrote:


If you ran 3x rigors prior it's slightly less effective now in terms of damage application. Thus, a T1 flare is now worth more than a T1 rigor for a third rig. Running either MGCs or MGEs in combination with rigors or flares is only going to see marginal gains (certainly not more than what you're sacrificing in the process).

Let's not go down the turret vs. missile vs. drone path... Turrets can apply full (and more damage), but they also frequently miss (missiles do as well, but not to the same extent). With larger ships and turrets you need a combination of straight vectors, distance or target painters and webs (usually 2/3).

Looking at a few popular examples for ships, would you use a MGC or MGE on (PvE only):

1. Golem. Nope. 2x T2 rigors and 2 TPs allow you to blap most frigates with single Faction volleys. Yes, you have to activate TPs, and yes - there is falloff - but TPs and rigors aren't stacking penalized together, and the Golem gets a whopping +50% TP bonus. Plus it has no low slots and few (if any) mids to sacrifice. Definitely nope.

...

I'm sure I've only made a dent and omitted quite a few, but the premise is basically the same: MGCs and MGEs are inherently underpowered.



Actually, I use MGCs, but not MGEs since most Caldari ships are short of low slots.

For an instance, my Golem has 2 TPs, 2 MGCs and 2 T2 Rigors. But this is not just enough for my PVE situation. I mostly run vanguard incursions which the Sansha frigs takes the major portion of targets and far more stronger than elite frigs in mission. But even with MGCs, TPs and Rigors, the precision missiles lack of damage(which makes it worthless compared to turret ships), others lack of expR.

If somebody says shooting frigs with over-sized missiles wrong, I'd like to say the same thing to the turrets.

Put things aside, I totally agree to your last mention. They are so underpowerd.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#995 - 2015-08-02 08:00:31 UTC
What I'm seeing as the major issue with these modules is that missiles essentially have two different effects for application and range.

You have exp velocity and exp radius.
Then, you have missile velocity and missile flight time.

Now, this works out for the missiles as a stand alone system, but when you try to add modifiers, it becomes complicated.

In the case of range, that is easy. We're always going to want velocity over flight time.
so the issue with MGE and MGC, as far as range goes, can simply be addressed by applying all buffs to velocity. (though, you do have the issue of stacking penalties, which is the complication here)

As far as application goes, it's tricky business.
At a stationary or slow moving target, it's all about exp radius.
For a target moving at a moderate speed, both are equally important.
Against a fast moving target, the system favors exp velocity, though a smaller target will sway how important radius is, but it is still less important than velocity.

What's weird (and I've never seen someone actually mention it as an issue) is that when a target is moving very fast speed, reducing your exp radius can actually hurt you more than help you.
What I mean by this is, if you're already having issues with the target mitigating damage by out-running the exp velocity, this becomes worse when you reduce the exp radius, as they then have to out-run the velocity but in a smaller area, thus reducing the amount of time they spend inside the radius.

You then have the situations where you come across an immobile or webbed to hell target, to which exp velocity is basically meaningless. This causes the exp velocity bonus of MGEs and MGCs to be virtually useless.

You also have an odd case with short range missiles that turrets (if used properly) do not share the same concerns.
This is, when you need range. You can increase your range, but at the cost of application.
Now, the reason I say turrets don't share this concern is, while they do lose tracking while fitting range scripts, they can negate the tracking issues by catching targets on alignment, catching them on a turn, following travel direction, and hitting a slow/immobile target.
Missiles cannot do this, which means application modification is always required, unless the target is a larger class than what your missiles are intended for (IE lights shooting a cruiser).
There's basically no way to address this issue without removing a stat and/or always giving missiles some sort of application bonus, even with range modules.

As far as the varying importance of exp radius vs exp velocity... Well, this could possibly be addressed by having a exp velocity script, exp radius script, and a combined script.
However, you again face the issue of stacking penalties, which are the bane of missiles systems, probably more so than any other weapon.
It's kind of a catch 22.... Perhaps missiles just need to altogether go back to the drawing board.

It's a bit weird that introducing a module, that was intended to help missiles, has instead caused their blemishes to stand out; Kinda like when you're staining wood and it causes the imperfections to show...
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#996 - 2015-08-02 09:08:27 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

What's weird (and I've never seen someone actually mention it as an issue) is that when a target is moving very fast speed, reducing your exp radius can actually hurt you more than help you.
What I mean by this is, if you're already having issues with the target mitigating damage by out-running the exp velocity, this becomes worse when you reduce the exp radius, as they then have to out-run the velocity but in a smaller area, thus reducing the amount of time they spend inside the radius.


It doesnt work like that.

The formula applies instantly, the target doesnt actually travel through the explosion. It's all just fluff to explain the existence of the formula.

The problem with fleeting ships is that missile range is (missile speed - target speed) * flight time.

So for example a drake shooting at a cynabal doing 3km/s which is trying to burn away has an effective range of

(6450-3000)*9.75 = 33.6km and not ~62.9 it might do.

Of course this goes both ways as when things burn at missiles they can burn into range, in my experience though, this doesn't happen often enough to offset the issue.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#997 - 2015-08-02 09:15:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
BN0216 Lim wrote:
For an instance, my Golem has 2 TPs, 2 MGCs and 2 T2 Rigors. But this is not just enough for my PVE situation. I mostly run vanguard incursions which the Sansha frigs takes the major portion of targets and far more stronger than elite frigs in mission. But even with MGCs, TPs and Rigors, the precision missiles lack of damage(which makes it worthless compared to turret ships), others lack of expR.

The only aspect you could change is switching to RHMLs utilizing Precision ammo, but you take a huge range hit. The 35-second reload time could be a deal killer as well.

Joe Risalo wrote:
It's a bit weird that introducing a module, that was intended to help missiles, has instead caused their blemishes to stand out; Kinda like when you're staining wood and it causes the imperfections to show...

Yes. Yes it is. And don't forget there's supposed to be a missile disruption module as well... Evil

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#998 - 2015-08-02 09:31:55 UTC
Joe, that was perfection!

So here is what I want CCP, you ditch the explosion velocity or explosion radius part and the drf part from all missiles and give the modules the one that's left - missiles fixed.

Than give small and large railguns +20% damage and rocket at +15% damage and we have all weapon system fix, two bird one stone.

I am on fire this morning.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#999 - 2015-08-02 09:52:19 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Joe, that was perfection!

So here is what I want CCP, you ditch the explosion velocity or explosion radius part and the drf part from all missiles and give the modules the one that's left - missiles fixed.

Than give small and large railguns +20% damage and rocket at +15% damage and we have all weapon system fix, two bird one stone.

I am on fire this morning.


My opinion, get rid of exp velocity and flight time.

Exp velocity is a bit of a weird aspect and I believe is a lingering aspect of when missiles were AoE.
It is likely too difficult for CCP to work with, as they likely don't understand it anymore than we do.

As far as flight time, removing this and instead going to a simple max range not only makes makes balancing missile velocity easier, but also relieves the range loss issues caused by acceleration time.

Then, all you have to worry about is a script for exp radius and a max range script.
As far as missile velocity, well... I'm not sure where to go on this, but if you change the others you could likely make it 100km/s and it wouldn't effect range or application, apart from catching frigs.
I'm not suggesting that speed, I'm just using it as an example.
I would imagine that any missile could go 10km/s and it wouldn't effect application, as damage would be solely based on radius.
Sig is essentially the missile version of tracking.
You might always be able to apply damage with my suggestion, but since you now only have 1 application factor to balance, it becomes much easier to establish pros and cons.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#1000 - 2015-08-02 12:17:12 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
My opinion, get rid of exp velocity and flight time.

Exp velocity is a bit of a weird aspect and I believe is a lingering aspect of when missiles were AoE.
It is likely too difficult for CCP to work with, as they likely don't understand it anymore than we do.

As far as flight time, removing this and instead going to a simple max range not only makes makes balancing missile velocity easier, but also relieves the range loss issues caused by acceleration time.

Then, all you have to worry about is a script for exp radius and a max range script.
As far as missile velocity, well... I'm not sure where to go on this, but if you change the others you could likely make it 100km/s and it wouldn't effect range or application, apart from catching frigs.
I'm not suggesting that speed, I'm just using it as an example.
I would imagine that any missile could go 10km/s and it wouldn't effect application, as damage would be solely based on radius.
Sig is essentially the missile version of tracking.
You might always be able to apply damage with my suggestion, but since you now only have 1 application factor to balance, it becomes much easier to establish pros and cons.


My apologies for quoting. I would like to ask you and everyone else that we get a consensus on how to proceed and I strongly believe that removing that second part of the missile formular we have something solid.

About the missile velocity and flight time I wouldn't want to change much since this was an inbuild weakness even when they had 100% application.
And even if we finally get that back citadel torpedos and cruise missiles speed could be changed to flight time so a Megathron and a Raven can outrun them with an mwd on.

A that unlucky frigate pilot that runs into them is responsible for not paying attention, not a mechanics fault. It never was.

I remember back in the day when the Manticore had that cruise missile bonus but they were so slow that you could have launched them from 200km away to a battleship and the battleship pilot could see them approaching him, go to out with his friends and eat a pizza and come back hours later and warp away (quoted from the old forums).

Most pilots from that area don't want it back because they remember it differently than I and none of the mechanics that played into that 'overpoered' perception went away many ages ago.
So no, you cannot fit 5 mwds anymore and you should not fit 8 heat sinks on an Apocolypse because of stacking penalties.

What they may percieve as menace to interceptors and the like CCP can always slow heavy missiles and hams down enough to not be a real thread to them and links already make yolo-overpowered things possible that even we vets say they should be nerfed.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever