Login

Binski · 04-26-2022, 03:47 AM,

For fighter missiles, I suggest looking at it from a different perspective. I'd rather see a bit of a more realistic set up to go with. To me that would mean, less missiles, higher hit ratio, higher damage, but also warrant a buff to CM's.

I think it would be better for the average fighter to get 4 - 6 missiles at most, but have a high projectile speed, turn rate and damage (enough, or almost enough to 1 hit kill an average armored fighter). The balancer is definitely the low ammo limit. Basically, like real fighter battles, most would launch their missiles off early on in a battle, and resort to guns after that. Debilitators can also always be the go-to for de-shielding, and a missile could be for that window when you get someone's shield down. So if they had a 50 - 75 % hit ratio, that would likely result in 1 missile kill per 4 missiles (taking CM's and pilot skill into account). And that's also why it may warrant a buff to CM's.

4 missiles that fire as fast and turn as well as a CD, with a real punch to them, maybe with a 2000 m range. The ammo limit gives you a few chances to make them count, and CM's become much more valuable to bring to a fighter battle. But you will be more likely to make them count and land some hits.

The same could be done with bombers and nova torpedoes. I'd almost rather 20 (or less) instead of 70, of torps with a longer range, better speed/maneuverability, and higher damage. The drawback is the same, low shield damage, except for those like Incapacitators. Like all missiles, you'd be trying to use them when a target's shield is down. (and Incapacitators could be totally removed, leaving all de-shielding done by energy weapons, and most hull damage done by novas, scorchers, hellfires, etc)

For capitals, I find most missiles are simply slow. I'd rather see a low ammo count and high speed to those missiles too. That, or make slower missiles have a much higher area damage and be practically impossible to shoot down (strength wise).

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Poll: Why missiles are ineffective? (Full form on google forms) You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Missiles lack the damage over time or efficiency in relation to guns	6.61%	8	6.61%
Missiles are too slow, giving the opponent plenty of time to react	12.40%	15	12.40%
Missiles lose track too easily	14.05%	17	14.05%
Missiles have low lifetime (Explodes by themselves too soon)	4.96%	6	4.96%
Munition reserves are too small	4.96%	6	4.96%
Missiles have low agility, making them easy to avoid	14.88%	18	14.88%
Missiles have very low refire, limiting damage output or giving the opponent plenty of time to react between salvos	5.79%	7	5.79%
Lack of diversity in missile wepons	9.09%	11	9.09%
Munitions are too expensive	3.31%	4	3.31%
Ammo limitations also limit usefulness in long battles	8.26%	10	8.26%
Missile weapons lack the "Multi-role" aspect of guns	4.13%	5	4.13%
Countermeasures are too effective	11.57%	14	11.57%
Total		121 vote(s)	100%