These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods

First post First post
Author
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#241 - 2015-10-05 13:33:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.


Even with -80% a turret still has range, if rockets lose 70% of their range they probably won't hit anything... have you done any testing on this?
Krughor Khan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#242 - 2015-10-05 13:40:49 UTC
Im still in the pvp noob phase of "loose some ships until you find your playing style and score some", but since all turrets and missiles will have a disruptor module that counters them, what about drones?

More power to the tristan/comet/algos trinity in fw, since none of them are seriously affected by any td like module (comet can still load something like iridium, iron or spike to still hit a bit)? Why should gallente be the more viable pvp option?

I would like to read the opinions of more experienced pvp players, but please dont start saying that other faction's ships are equally balanced because if this measure goes ahead you can render all of their ships next to useless with a single mod (or am I missing something?).
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#243 - 2015-10-05 13:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.


But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff?

Most are stacked to one or the other.

No-one cares if lasers lose a little falloff/projectiles lose some optimal.

Missiles do not have this luxury as time*speed are married. Plus you're making flat out out-running the missiles even more viable (when it has no right to be, as speed already hits application) by attacking speed.

Likewise, I cannot outrun gun rounds.

Finally, I CANNOT swap long range ammo into most launcher systems (javelin aside)...all, ALL turrets have the option to reload long range ammunition.

If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#244 - 2015-10-05 13:47:01 UTC
Krughor Khan wrote:
Im still in the pvp noob phase of "loose some ships until you find your playing style and score some", but since all turrets and missiles will have a disruptor module that counters them, what about drones?

More power to the tristan/comet/algos trinity in fw, since none of them are seriously affected by any td like module (comet can still load something like iridium, iron or spike to still hit a bit)? Why should gallente be the more viable pvp option?

I would like to read the opinions of more experienced pvp players, but please dont start saying that other faction's ships are equally balanced because if this measure goes ahead you can render all of their ships next to useless with a single mod (or am I missing something?).


drone e-war is definitely needed and current e-war is too powerful, 86% and 70% for disruptors is far too much, then you have damps and ecm along with cap warfare... along with things like webs, which ofc has no impact on drones but can prevent other ships from getting close enough too hit anything..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Ju0ZaS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2015-10-05 13:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ju0ZaS
Auto targetting missiles should be excluded from the disruption imo. Jams don't effect them either. Maybe that would give people more of a reason to at least have some in their cargo?

Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?

Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#246 - 2015-10-05 13:50:36 UTC
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
To be perfectly honest, the introduction of missile disruptors seems completely pointless to me right now. Are Drake fleets blotting out the sky? Are Cruise Ravens an actual thing and I hadn't noticed?

If these are imlemented there will be four ways to completely nullify the damage of a missile fleet: firewall, outrunning the missiles, warping out once the volley is on its way, and disrupting their range. And since mitigating missile damage is already much easier than avoiding gun damage (fly fast vs. maximize transversal) this just adds to the pile of reasons missiles are in such a bad spot overall.

A couple of proposals:

- If you're removing the old advantage of missiles of not being susceptible to ewar, let them have critical hits now.
- Buff HML and Torp application; also cruise missile speed.
- Remove firewall; I personaly think it's great, but its just not fair for so many counters to exist to a weapon system with subpar damage and application to start with.
- Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P

You forgot to add TDs to turret counters P They are quite popular in that regard.

Cruise Ravens will never be an actual thing outside of pve because delayed damage will always be there. There is no buff or nerf that can affect any other characteristic of cruise missiles enough to make Ravens a pvp thing. The only reason drone boats are a fleet doctrine is sentries. There would be no Ishtars if they had to wait for slow as molasses heavy drones to plod from one target to another. Gilas are actually niche because of the ridiculous buff on mediums. If it weren't so over the top you probably wouldn't see them either. Delayed damage is what messes with large long range missiles.

As for Drake or Navy Drake fleets it is still too early to tell what affect on usage has resulted from the BC rebalance.

Missile speed can only go so far. Years ago there was an overall speed nerf on ships because it was causing severe problems with the games computations. Again, missiles can only be made to go so fast before they present a similar problem. Fozzie would know where that threshold is, but I suspect it is rather near to current missile speeds or it would be an obvious adjustment to help missiles. Maybe there is a little room for increased missile speed.

Similarly, when you mess too much with explosion parameters you risk making any missile good for any size or speed ship. Then missile ships dont have to think and have no counters. Turrets have tracking parameters radii, optimal, and falloff. At long range where the angular motion of a target is low, but the target is still within optimal the long range large turrets will hit, and will blap. But increase the angular motion enough and they miss completely. One has to avoid the clicking of approach if you are in something small going after something large. HMs used to be good for hitting just about anything. Now they are not. This is good. If you want critical hit calculations for missiles then say hello to complete misses as well, even if the missile is otherwise caught up to the target and exploding fast enough.

Firewall has been recently nerfed. It takes some thinking though. For instance, if you just blindly keep shooting the same type missile into a smartie and don't figure out what damage type smartie you are dealing with then too bad. Firewall was only a player invention to somehow overcome the missile spam of massed Drakes. Smarties were originally meant and still work as anti drone defense. If the Drake fleets reappear we will see what effect the nerf had.

Certainly ship v missile speed should be looked at again. Missiles should have an advantage. That people can construct ridiculous speed ships means some of the speed mods need some nerfing imo. You may not have been around for the past speed nerf but it was a very heated flame war on the forums. But I think most would agree now that the game is better for it.

Your last comment is just silly. CCP devs are not and never have been concerned with Caldari over Amarr or vice versa or any combination. Even if it has felt that way. For a long time Amarr was total ****. Gallente was **** for a while until the DDAs. Believe me, since 2006 I have never seen the game in as good a state of balance as it is now. Well except maybe when sniper BSs ruled fleet warfare. Because there was no one racial sniper BS that was clearly better than the others. But then there were plenty of problems associated with that era that are thankfully gone now.

These new modules make the game combat tactics more complex. This is good. And it will be a continuing dance of adjustments. So much better now than year after year of Drake fleets in the not so distant past.

To those saying, but defender missiles. Argh. Those things have been ass stink from the getgo. And there have been dev posts about how complex and taxing on resources the coding would have to be to fix them. Defender missiles might actually work better as anti drone weapons since they go after the closest thing and drones in orbit don't move as fast as missiles. MTD modules are better imo. Easy to see them as electronic jamming pointed specifically at missiles to make their guidance computers waste fuel from faulty flight paths or explode in the wrong place etc.

Careful though if defenders do get reworked to anti drone. Because then a lot of changes will come. Including the necessity of a launcher slot on just about every ship. And if drones become too killable then hello another round of drone buffs. And so it goes

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#247 - 2015-10-05 13:57:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.


86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?

They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.

afkalt wrote:
If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships.

Agreed. Flight time is better for reduction. Flight speed reductions just invite more abuse of ridiculous ship speed fits and tactics.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#248 - 2015-10-05 13:58:39 UTC
Ju0ZaS wrote:
Auto targetting missiles should be excluded from the disruption imo. Jams don't effect them either. Maybe that would give people more of a reason to at least have some in their cargo?


That's assuming Auto-Targeting missiles work in PVP, which they haven't for at least the last year. I tested this recently on SiSi and they are still broken. Logged EBR-41489 which is attached to an internal bug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL4Z5GM92Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE

That said, I think excluding auto-targeting missiles from the disruption would be a good balance - if the above problems can be fixed.
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
#249 - 2015-10-05 13:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Deacon Abox wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.


86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?

They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.


those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat.
its says so right beofre the % are listed.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#250 - 2015-10-05 14:06:12 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat.
its says so right beofre the % are listed.

OopsLol at me, back to what I should be doing. Trying to do two things at once will result in neither being done well.Oops

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#251 - 2015-10-05 14:09:22 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat.
its says so right beofre the % are listed.

OopsLol at me, back to what I should be doing. Trying to do two things at once will result in neither being done well.Oops


even so, it shouldn't be possible under any circumstances too do that much

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Aivlis Eldelbar
Foxholers
Outfoxed
#252 - 2015-10-05 14:45:27 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?

At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.

As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.

Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.


Not empty quoting.

Even though I am still unsold on the supposed benefits of merging both effects into the existing tracking disruptor, missiles need a thorough look at.


Deacon Abox wrote:
stuff


I guess the joke in my last suggestion didn't translate well, my apologies. I do not really believe devs are lore-biased, but that doesn't change the fact that missiles are in a bad spot application-wise and have been there for a long time.

Other than that, I fail to see the point you're making beyond applauding complexity, reminiscing about the golden age of nano fits and explaining how tracking works. In reply, I agree on the first count, with some reservations; no, I wasn't around for nanophoons but it does look hilarious on video; and I am quite aware of how the tracking formulae work, they are not that complicated.

The main technical limitation I see with missile speed is currently aparent on the Mordu's hulls, where ultra-fast missiles lead to inconsistent ranges, ie: 10km/s missiles paired with a 1Hz server mean your range fluctuates by up to 9km (0.9s of flight time).

Heavy missiles aren't good for hitting shield + MWD cruisers right now, so I wonder what are they supposed to hit. Their application was nerfed way too far and never again looked at.

Firewalling is more difficult now? Marginally, and with most viable missile platforms being kinetic-locked, it's not that hard to pick the right smarbombs, is it?

I agree on delayed damage being one of the main issues with large missiles... yet it isn't on RML doctrines and wasn't on Drakes, so I guess upping the speed does work to mitigate that particular problem.

Lastly, the difference between missile range disruption and gun optimal disruption lies in the fact that a gun can still hit to beyond it's falloff, if rarely, while missiles can't hit at all, and with a speed reduction they become even easier to outrun, which is silly. The effect is much worse on missiles, so I'd call for the scripts to affect onlt flight time, not speed.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#253 - 2015-10-05 15:23:29 UTC
Amber Starview wrote:
Complicating a easy fix by not adding it to TD ...weapon disruption sounds good as suggested above just nerf the stuffing out of every ewar unless it's specialised hull (T1 or T2) or well skilled but make it easy to understand and fit and use for noobs but hard to master



... and this is not yet the case? Because your unbonussed TP or ECM is so massively overpowered? They are easy to understand, noobs can fly Executioners and Griffins to great effect, and you DO need to invest considerable time to become somewhat decent at your ewars "to master it" as you say.

Missile Disruptor as a separate module, okay - but please make sure to not obsolete DAMPS. If ONE scripted MD can practically kill the engagement range of a ship down to the equivalent of TWO damps, then there is a problem. Don't get me wrong, killing missile range is a good thing in certain situations -- but there are plenty of missiles (HAMS, Torps on anything but a bomber, Rockets) that already have no range whatsoever --> It would take only one MD to utterly kill their DPS.

Not to mention many missiles already have a pretty nasty (and frustrating) counter: you can simply OUTRUN them. Orbit fast enough en your HAMs/Torps are useless. MWD away in a straight line and you can even outrun light missiles (from anything but a Garmur).

I can totally see why you'd want anti-missile EWAR but for the love of god, (1) crank up the speed on all missiles, (2) go easy on the nerfs there cowboy! Remember: you can always buff the module if it's perceived too weak. Starting if off like this is harsh. VERY harsh.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#254 - 2015-10-05 15:27:16 UTC
afkalt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.


But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff?

That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.


Deacon Abox wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?

They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.

Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

unidenify
Deaf Armada
Deaf and Daft
#255 - 2015-10-05 15:32:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.


But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff?

That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.


Deacon Abox wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?

They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.

Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).


so those Amarr EWAR ship will have bonus for missile disruptor or you have different idea as give it to Caldari as second EWAR?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#256 - 2015-10-05 15:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
EDIT : Brain malfunction about range... My bad.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).


Or use a second slot on your ship...
Lev Ironwill
Dark Nebula Academy
O X I D E
#257 - 2015-10-05 15:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lev Ironwill
Since missiles and turrets, which have historically been promoted as different, are becoming very similar, does that mean that CCP is happy with the current state of missiles as a whole?
Is it intended for Heavies to be a joke?
Is it intended for speed creep to curb stomp application before the fight even starts?
Is it intended for cruise missiles to be relegated to missions (not even Incursion PvE because flight time) and for torps to be relegated to Stealth Bombers and structure grinding?

The biggest problem with missiles isn't that Rapid launchers are cancer, primarily Rapid Lights, rather it is that the weapons they are supposed to be competing with for slots are utter trash. Why would I fit Heavies on a Caracal when RLML's, even with reload, will outperform them? The answer is when you have a blob of them to be able to fling corpses and still win the blobfest. The takeaway from this is to stop making missiles more like turrets with mods and put some serious work into making ALL of them viable.
You want player feedback? Ask around for fitting advice about missiles and you're going to hear RHML's on BS's and RLML's on BC's and Cruisers (with the occasional HAM fit) and of course rockets and lights on frigs/dessies. As I mentioned, cruises are only going to be advocated for missions and torps will only be fitted for structure grinding. Heavies are trying to compete for the Most Niche Fit award and HAM's are, at best, situational. The recent changes have made me really and truly start regretting skilling into missiles.

When Sentry Ishtar blobs darkened the skies you didn't introduce drone EWAR, you started tweaking stats to fix the problem. Now that Rapid launchers (and Mordu's hulls) are starting to have aspirations of the same role you are throwing out the ability to neuter any missile hull rather than fixing the actual problem. This is where allegations of bias come from. (Insert Archer "Do you want ants" meme here)
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#258 - 2015-10-05 15:56:16 UTC
I wonder if anyone uses torps. I mean other than on stealth bombers.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#259 - 2015-10-05 15:58:16 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.


I read it differently, fair enough.

And the other concerns? Outrunning missiles, for example.

Or that a turret can load long range ammo to compensate, or just manage transversal to mitigate - no such options exist beyond javelin for missiles. Precision are already too slow as it is
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#260 - 2015-10-05 16:00:47 UTC
A major factor of missile disruption is that it gives OPTIONS to the dev team.

Do we actually need missile disruption? Yes. Hell yes.
Why?
Because it gives an FC a direct counter to cerb fleets as an example. Does it negatively hit cruise pvp boats or possibly gut RHML boats? Yes possibly.. but because people can now COUNTER these fits... they can and will be looked at for buffage by the dev team if needed.

You cant have your cake without a neighborhood bully who likes that flavor. This is a PVP game. Rock paper scissors is the absolute god. Anything which violates that truism doesn't need to exist and we've all seen how destructive such a ship can be(ishtar anyone?)

Additionally to anyone who is saying the missile mod reduction is to heavy...realize disruption is brutal. Reloading ammo doesn't really help and its laughable people seriously suggest "just switch to long range ammo" . All long range ammo does while under TD is make you have an illusion of hitting anything for any meaningful amount.
Disruption is what is termed as a "hard counter" If the enemy FC sees you are all ranged turret boats he can switch to a fleet that will out range your optimal and then TD the hell out of you. You currently see cerbs/caras out more because they currently cant be disrupted and always have sniper grade optimals. Disruption means more counters, more thinking, and more diversified metas. This is a GOOD thing people.