Missiles Need Love Too

Avatar
why are u using t1 missles and t2 ammo why not use rage
Avatar
I hope CCP will give us back the old heavy missiles, but that is simply a dream. Also CCP don't have ewar effecting missiles.
Avatar
Rage has shorter range than faction ammo. The idea was to compare the most heavily damaging, longest range options for each weapon system.
Avatar
There is a simpler solution to the ewar problem: make defenders viable.A simple way would be to be able to apply defenders on an ally, and by doing so, affecting them to his defense. This would bypass the problems CCP was having with the idea of having defenders help nearby allies (problems with too much range checking).With an ewar option viable, missiles can be buffed to compensate accordingly. This would also create a choice for utility high (there is really few right now).Concerning range buffing modules, I'm really against it in the current state of missiles, because some missile systems already have way too much range (think cruise). And in the current meta, because of warps and probing, any range above 150km is pretty much lost. I think we could do more interesting stuff with modules. A module improving speed at the price of flight range would be neat, though!
Avatar
This has to be a troll article. i cant even begin to express how op missiles still are, and i think its futile on someone like you to even try.
Avatar
Decent little article, although you forgot to mention smartbombs, they work as a missile/drone counter. And while defenders only target missiles fired at you, smartbombs will affect any missile in range. Ive seen them used to good effect this way(CFC Drakes vs NCdot AHACs in Tribute springs to mind)Personally I don't think we need another missile counter.
Avatar
Using Tremor, Aurora, and Spike for comparison.Nobody uses those ammos. Instead faction short range ammos are used, which is where the problem is, HMLs were able to achieve high damage with faction missiles from long range while turrets had to use short range faction ammo to achieve siimilar results, at a massive range loss.
Avatar
<--- eve24 is there troll
Avatar
You guys are forgetting something important. Missile ships all look boring as hell.Drakes are boring, tengus are dull, ravens are hideous, talwars are nosehair trimmers, phoenix are toyota priuses, levis are bad. The only good looking missile boats are the typhoon and the scorp. qtiyd
Avatar
Corax looks pretty good :) Especially if you're a fan of U-Boats.
Avatar
which drives home the point even harder, HML's are worse than medium turrets with crap ammo loaded.
Avatar
Looking at the chart, the DPS and range is comperable. Where missiles fall short and high damage turret ammo can catch up, and blow by them is in tracking mods.
Avatar
Back up your comment with some facts?
Avatar
Drakes look nice, Ravens look cool, Typhoons are incredibly ugly though.
Avatar
fuck there goes my argument out the window. corax is beautiful, but pretty shit
Avatar
HMLs don't have to worry about tracking like turrets do. The high damage high range ammos all have ridiculous tracking penalties, usually -75% tracking.HMLs have no such problem, which is why they were OP.
Avatar
I agree that we don't need another missile counter, but I think the ones we have need a serious reworking.
Avatar
High range turret ammo is not high damage ammo. The high damage ammo is shorter range and gives a tracking BUFF to those turrets. In comparison, T2 missile ammo is either half range lower DPS accuracy ammo, or 75% range high damage lower accuracy ammo.
Avatar
You forgot the "real" counter to missiles. That's not the defense missiles, It's firewalls(smartbombs).
Avatar
Compared to the faction ammo of ~similar~ range its damage is high.T2 ammo for medium long range weapons sucks, either massive range nerf or massive tracking nerf
Avatar
touche, you are right, i had not considered that, however that is a tactic that is only *really* effective in well organized fleets. Tracking disruption is viable in all fights.
Avatar
Correct. however missiles don't have a t2 counterpart to long range t2 turret ammo. Rockets, HAMS and Torps have javelins to fill that role. If you want range with missiles, faction or straight t1 is the ONLY choice.
Avatar
Yea, precisions are an anomaly in weapons systems.Edit: And I have to agree, missiles are quite bad most of the time.
Avatar
I have never used Defenders, I assume the only work on missiles fired at you? What about making it so you could target a ship with defenders and when you fire you fire upon the missiles they're shooting regardless of who they're shooting at? This way, you could have another role for lower sp fleet members that want to contribute in a way other than hero tackler. A handful of frigs loaded up with defenders could bring meaningful defense on a suitably squishy platform.
Avatar
Smartbomb are somewhat like what defenders should be, but they work only in large fleet setups because you need a ton to avoid having to time them perfectly with missile salvos.But if you play small gang (FW for example), you'll see light missiles are pretty much everywhere (condors, rapid light missile caracals), and have no real counter like long range turrets have (TDs with range disruption). Since smartbombs are completely unreliable in small numbers.
Avatar
if server load is a issue, dont use defenders any more and have the module mount a CIWShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...so it is a gunnery or energy pulse thing that negates a % of income missile volley damage or something, say 25% chance that a missile becomes shot down by CIWS (15% to 40%, m0 to officers)that way, any additional calculation is minimal, and it would likely function similar to neuts artwise so it would have an "effect" but not a turret hard point.
Avatar
Too many people are falling fowl of just comparing the perfect DPS figures yet again and dismissing every other difference between turrets and missiles.Travel time alone on missiles change their role considerably. I've lost count how many times those seconds of travel time have caused me grief in fleets. In some cases it's an annoyance of not getting on a KM, while in others it's delayed the total fleet alpha enough for the other person to squeeze a rep / remote rep in.And let's not forget the endless times of people firing a rack of missiles, only for them to never hit a thing due to the target being killed by turret users before they arrive. They'll just fly off into space, being utterly useless. Not only is it wasted ammo, but it brings you closer to that sloooow reload of them.Throw in needing a mid slot target painter, on what is often shield tanked missile ships for full damage, and you have this weird combination which feels like an afterthought.I'd really like to see a scriptable highslot target painter. Scripts for range and explosion radius enhancement. But then I suppose you're then at the issue of utility highs....
Avatar
on the flip side, a well organized firewall is more effective than tracking disruption ever will be. Fire-walling requires fewer people, not leaving room for grunt error applying TD's, and scales infinitely, a single set of fire-walling ships can neutralize all the missiles coming from a single fleet anchor.To see the effectiveness of good firewall ships, look at the old video of the HBC fighting 100mn coward tengus with Napocs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...that massive stream of missiles slows to a trickle after the smartbombing loki's are in position, and keep in mind these are AEB Tengu hams, which are among the fastest missiles in the game, never-mind slow missiles like torps and unboosted HML's. 4 smartbombers and a handful of cap transfer ships can dramatically reduce the DPS of a missile fleet, something that TD's can not do.
Avatar
Your big mistake is whether the missile lands or not its irrelevant, the firing of the missile is agro, so you will be on the kill :)But every weapon system has its downside, rails has shit dps, blasters shit range and both have fixed damage type, AC's have mediocre dps but good range and mixed damage type, lasers have shit tracking and fixed damage type but good fast change of range.Missiles hit every time (if in range) have differing damage types but have to contend with sig more then turrets, its a good trade off in my opinion, medium rails needed some love and long range everything but missiles and artys are fucking awful and needs a buff.The target painter thing is stupid, rokhs have to use a tracking comp that's a mid slot too, or if a arm tanking ship they have to waste a limited mid slot for TC if they so wish, its called balance dear boy :)
Avatar
Good points worth considering
Avatar
And really, the problem with the TP comparison goes past even Rokhs and TCs - armor tanked ships directly lose slots of tank for every damage mod they use. So complaining about the TP coming out of a drake/tengu/caracal/raven's tank is like complaining that a mega has to sacrifice tank for a mag stab. Yes, an Amarr missile boat might be able to fit a TP w/out sacrificing tank, but the Caldari missile boat isn't giving up tank for its BCS.
Avatar
Personally, I dislike the idea of defender missiles being used with a mid-slot EWAR module. None of the other EWAR mods use ammo like that - yes, they take scripts, but you don't use up scripts every time your sensor damp goes off.For that matter, if defensive weaponry were put in the mids, then why not use laser-based point defense batteries? Defender missiles were a good idea, but a terrible implementation.
Avatar
The problem with saying "turrets can't decrease their signature resolution so we can't decrease explosion radius of missiles" is that the formulae are completely different. There is a limit to how much explosion velocity can do since unlike the turret equation, the missile equation is a minimum of three functions (granted one is a constant function). If the flat signature radius/explosion radius applies, velocity does absolutely nothing. However, in the case of turret tracking, turret tracking will always have an effect, however small it is. While explosion radius can't be severely messed with, I think small modifications should be possible since turrets only have the hard cap of 100% hit chance if the target is at zero velocity, compared to the missile cap of 100% or signature/explosion, whichever is smaller. That said, the missile-turret balance is stupidly complex due to variable damage of turrets even when hitting along with the differences in the ammunition.
Avatar
lol cfc crying about their caracals and drakes.BAD
Avatar
Also, it won't be you using your Torp spec 5 to blap my Frigates or retraining to Citadels immidiately because you have nothing else to train. It will be me doing it while other people come up with new suggestions on how to deal with how "OP" it is.It will be me using my understanding of transversal or the lack of it to get a ship become nigh invincible to Missiles by stacking the new counters upon the existing counters no one paid any attention to until it was "clearly OP".I'm not being a smug-dicked pastiche on purpose to entertain myself, I'm doing it to point something out. I wonder if someone will pick up on what it is.
Avatar
I would be happy with a turret module that shoots down missiles. Or even just something similar to smartbombs that puts out a 'field' that destroys oncoming missiles. (Another use for utility high slots?)
Avatar
I agree that it can be incredibly frustrating. For example, with the present ship rebalancing, the rebalance team has zero art assets from my understanding, which puts a limit on some of the things that can be done... however, the Art dept. at CCP is a finite resource, and they only have so much time. Laziness doesn't play into it. Art is presumably working on other projects right now, which is why they have no resources. A modification to ships of this magnitude to put enough hard points on them to be able to handle one or more of these mods could take some serious time. Maybe would be better off keeping defenders as a utility high, but perhaps not forcing it to count as a launcher?
Avatar
In the real world, we have chaff. Seems to fit the bill for a PDB.
Avatar
Side note:Cruise missile need to have their hit points increased. As far as I remember they have the same as light missiles.
Avatar
Sorry, I know missiles have issues and all but all I can see is beam lasers being completely shafted here.Same DPS, 10km less range and three times the cap conspumtion + ~20% more PG needed? Really, CCP?
Avatar
It might be easier on all depatments ( both programming and art ) to simply scrap defender missles and come out with a new mid slot item that launches flairs that would confuse the missiles targeting systems. This module would ofcourse use charges and have an extended reload time for balancing purposes like cap boosters, but its an option. Theres already a mechanic in place for turrets where the effect misses the ship when the shot misses, I'm sure it wouldn't take them very long to do the same to missiles.
Avatar
Capital size missiles need a lot of work. Carriers should not be able to speed tank a Phoenix.
Avatar
"This video contains content from SACEM, Sony ATV Publishing, UMG and EMI, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."Is that being racist? =\
Avatar
How about a mid slot module that activates your turrets into a "missile defense" mode, the accuracy of which is affected by how many of these modules you put into the mid. Then get rid of the "defender missiles" so everyone has a shot at missiles defense. Missile speed to intercept and tracking speed for turrets (against the missile of course). This would make the smaller faster ones harder to hit and the larger ones easier to intercept.
Avatar
I also think that you should be targeting the ship that you are trying to intercept the missiles of (so it is equivalent to the rest of the ewarfare mods).
Avatar
As for the PDB: Lag is only a concern if it would fire missiles. But since it's a mid-slot module that doesn't actually require a launcher slot, there is no reason for it to actually fire missiles. Personally I'd opt for lasers or some sort of ballistic weapon, since that's what's already being done IRL.I really like the idea.
Avatar
Simple way to implement PDB: replace defense missiles with anti-missile flak rounds and let it be an armor module which scatters flak and causes a premature explosion of the incoming warhead. If you want to be evil, make it affect all physical projectiles but only one per cycle.It should be low slot as other armor modifications, thus, as that would cause laser boats to trade off DPS for defense, and would consume the old defense misiles, refurbished as flak rounds.
Avatar
I haven't seen this mentioned, perhaps because it is obviously stupid, but why not make a drone variant which shoots down incoming missiles? They'd function kinda like logi drones in that you'd target a teammate, or for yourself just have them orbit you. Sizes could correlate to missiles countered, maybe nerf their speed a bit, so that missile fleets would still have the ability to attempt alpha. 1 flight of drones roughly counters 1 ship's worth of missles relative to size.
Avatar
300dps for noob destroyer says otherwise
Avatar
Maybe you should have read the second page of the article where he goes into detail about a viable and useful counter to missiles, for example by tweaking defender missiles into a system that isn't as worthless as your commenting.
Avatar
I was thinking of a laser based system as well. Plus, it would look awesome.
Avatar
The only thing I could think of in regards to any sort of ewar for missiles would be for defenders to take a non launcher/turret slot like nos/neuts/dronelinks. Have like a non damage "pulse" that extends say... 5km from the hull in an aoe pattern. Have the cycle time be like 10 seconds or something so even though it would negate that source of damage per pulse, you could have ships counter that coutner by not alphaing with missiles but keep up a steady stream of missiles. (smartbombs =P)Of course my design skills suck so let's just keep the option to ignore me live.
Avatar
I like the idea of a laser based system. It could be a mid slot and use cap. Really, I just want to see 250 lasers shooting through space ever second -or whatever rate of fire would be balanced, maybe overheating increases ROF or range- with a cloud of exploding missiles at the end of it.The only problem is target selection. It couldn't just randomly pick out any missile in space because you would either shoot down as many friendly missiles as enemy, or you would end up with 20 people shooting the same incoming missile. And you couldn't just shoot at only missiles targeted at you because then you would end up with only the primary trying to shoot down an entire enemy fleets salvo while everyone else just sits there idly. It would have to act like an EWAR mod that you place on a target. If you know that your enemy is fielding a missile fleet you can have an entire fuck you fleet dedicated to targeting one or two enemy missile boats apiece and negating the incoming DPS.I think a system with a relatively short range but high rate of fire could work. That way longer ranges don't necessarily give the defender an unfair advantage of more chances to shoot down incoming missiles. Perhaps it should also be chance based like ECM, with a higher chance of hitting larger, slower missiles like torps over smaller ones like rockets. Or it can do a fixed amount of damage, requiring more hits to destroy a larger missile.
Avatar
No that is GEMA being giant faggots as usual in case you are in Germany. If not then take your pick from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Avatar
Just a thought, but why not a point defense drone? A heavy drone that can be deployed for no other purpose than to kill hostile missiles that pass within it's (intentionally) limited range. Give it a decent rate of fire (able to kill 2-3 missiles per cycle), and a higher bandwidth consumption (to prevent Domi's Rattlers, and other drone boats from deploying by the half dozen for fleet immunity). They can still be used for fleet defense, but they drop like sentries (immobile) and make for somewhat easy targets to get rid of. I think this setup would be an interesting way of dealing with the issues outlined with Defender missiles. (replace them entirely)
Avatar
Battlestar Galactica
Avatar
This is intended, though. Fozzie stated when he announced the missile changes that faction would remain for longest range, fury was for highest damage and precision was for shooting "down" for smaller targets. I think a great comparison would be the full gamut, FunkyBacon. Run the numbers with those three types of missiles along with all the T2 ammos (for turrets I'd suspect it'd be the closest range damage (INMF, CNAM, RFPP) or perhaps the comparable range.) You'd be able to put to rest the OPness of one or the other, having all the numbers in view.
Avatar
If you think about it, Rails should really do the most alpha of all the medium long range turrets. Basically, they should have their current range, but the alpha and firing speed of artillery. Then artillery should have its ROF increased to compensate.
Avatar
So your solution for TDs working against missiles, is to say that defender missiles suck (which they do) and then propose another defender missile module that works the same exact way (only moved to a mid-slot)?Here's a better idea: High-Slot Point Defense Battery - a "laser" type weapon that destroyers incoming missiles up to a certain range and at a certain rate. They can either shoot down missiles coming toward your own ship, or be assisted to another players ship (or maybe not), or they could simply target and destroy any hostile missiles in a certain range at a certain rate of fire.Or, you could just make a Missile Disruptor, which does the same thing as a tracking disruptor, only to missiles (slows them down, causing them to burn more fuel and thus have shorter range, fail to track their target, etc)
Avatar
It is called ECM.
Avatar
How about drones that when launched simply fly next to the ship and automatically start shooting incoming missiles? Not a great idea as it would only be effective in drone ships but at least it would not cause CCP's art department to faint. It would also perhaps allow the pilot to set them to defend an alternate target to protect a fleets most valuable assets.
Avatar
I do like the idea of a reworking for defender missiles,if as suggested by @Paul if they can be used against a ship not actualy firing missiles at you for the reasons he gives.Smart bomb firewalls are an expensive way to neitralise a missile fleet,/barrage, and really only viable,and truely effective in large scale PVPAlso a very expensive way espically for newbie players,who havent built up the masses of ISK older players may have For small scale or medium PVP a working,and effective defender missile system,makes alot more sense As to mods for missiles not really in favour to be honest.As others have posted every system has its weakness,for missiles thats flight time and explosion radius/velocity.The simple fact that if a targets in range a missile is going to hit is enough of an advantage to counter imo.Even with TCs TEs and TPs ect turrents are not gaurenteed to HIT every time as are missiles.Also mostly in favour of the turret buffs, overall.
Avatar
Thats not a different Idea, its the same as he proposed.
Avatar
why not point defense turrets? same anti-missile algorithms but cant shoot anything but missiles and doesn't require ammo
Avatar
Ehem... Firewall....
Avatar
stupidity ! total stupidity from ccp as alwaysthey don't count the fact that missiles are NOT instant damagethis is why they should be stronger than guns, period !

Late last year heavy missiles received a bit of a nerf to bring them more in line with medium turrets. At the time they DID have a distinct advantage over turrets, and the nerf was warranted. Some people will be of the opinion (and I'm one of them) that turrets should simply have been buffed instead, as medium long range weapons have been rather meh for some time now. Power creep was a serious concern at the time, so the nerf went forward. Compared to other medium sized long range weapons, heavy missiles still didn't suck. With the upcoming buffs to medium turrets coming down the pipe now, many people on the Eve-O forums have been requesting CCP take another look at reversing the nerf, or at least buffing heavy missiles.

Before we get into this any further, let's first look at some numbers as to how HMs presently stack up against long range turrets both before and after these turret buffs (New Changes in parentheses, rounded):

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20 (27 after change)
Alpha: 92 (106 after change)
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1 (-1.29 after change)
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21 (26 after change)
Alpha: 91 (114 after change)
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
DPS: 17 (19 after change)
Alpha: 242
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 26 (29 pre-nerf)
Alpha: 213 (237 pre-nerf)
Range: 63 km (84 pre-nerf)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

Looking at these stats, despite the Eve-O thread's conversation to the contrary, HMs actually match up fairly well against turrets using extreme long range. There are some idiosyncrasies of course. For one, the best long range option for missiles are faction missiles, not a T2 variant, and the shorter range, high precision ammo for missiles actually decreases overall alpha and DPS on missiles while increasing it significantly for turrets... then again, those precision T2 missiles hit just as well at 2km as they do at 30km, so I'm willing to call a fair trade on that one.

That said, there is one area where missiles fall painfully short. Like turrets (optimal and falloff) missiles have 2 stats that affect their range (flight time and speed). Also like turrets (signature resolution for target size, and tracking speed for target transversal velocity) missiles have 2 stats that affect their ability to hit a target effectively (explosion radius for target size, and explosion velocity for target speed). Modules can be used to significantly affect range and tracking for turrets with both medium slot (tracking computers) and low slot (tracking enhancers) options. Missile platforms, like turrets, have rigs available to increase their range and accuracy, but unlike turrets they have no modules to alter these stats.

Diligent pilots will point out that while missiles have no mods to increase range or accuracy, there are also no EWAR mods that will decrease these stats on them either. Tracking disruptors can effectively neuter a turret ship. If missiles were to get some range/accuracy love, there would need to be an appropriate counter. As it turns out, there is a mechanic in place already to counter missiles, it's just that no one uses it because the drawbacks are too great. More on that in a moment though!

While I do not agree that HMLs at this point are in need of a buff themselves, I wholeheartedly agree that some changes to the missile system are warranted at this time. As a realist, I am fairly certain that changes such as I am about to propose (and I'm not the first to suggest things like this) will not make it into this or likely the next release, but with enough community support, it might be possible to push some semblance of change through in the next expansion or two.

I've been playing Eve Online since 2003, and done a bit of everything. Eve Radio personality, blogger, and Factional Warfare/Lowsec Representative for CSM9 | @FunkyBacon - Twitter | facebook.com/funkybacon |