New thread: Nerf missiles (or missile count)

[Mímir]

pls


"get good" retards, take a hike. Unless of course you are good yourself (highly doubt it), and can actually teach people stuff. Then you'll need to write a bit more.

---

[Haste]

They can destroy a good fight if utilized correctly, and if you are fighting several ships at the same time that use missiles, you basically don't stand much of a chance.

I'd be less conservative.

They destroy any and all fights they're used in. Dodging isn't a thing if missiles are being used in sufficient quantities (that'd be three or so fighters with a missile and/or starkiller mounted). Half the time you won't be getting missile warnings either. Since you can't fly a snub AND look backwards, you can't CM correctly without said warning, and you'll die even quicker.

Missiles are guaranteed damage that take the press of a button. I disagree with your statement that they're hard to use. The one or two times I used them (and raked in kills without even having to fire my guns, really) I simply pressed the 'launch missile' button whenever I'd normally fire my guns at the target and voila, the missile hit and punched a hole in the target's hull.

There's literally nothing you can do except die when you're being focused down by a bunch of missile-wielding ships. The amount of skill required to apply as much pressure with guns is far, far higher. In fact, I don't think even the current 'top' PvPers chasing me with guns do as much damage as a (below) average player with a sidewinder mounted.

Slowly but surely everyone seems to finally be figuring this out. The question is whether aerelm is willing to piss off all the bads on the server who spam missiles to make PvP halfway enjoyable again for the rest of us (:

---

A slightly less rant-y end to this storytime-with-Haste post:

The main issue with missiles is that they're supposedly balanced for a single gun slot (except they're really not). So, let's say in the Sabre's case, they're supposed to be as effective as one of the seven guns the ship has. In other words, missiles would do 1/7th the damage of guns.

Haha, as if. Your average missile user is going to have done about twenty times as much damage with missiles as they've done with guns by the time they run out of ammo. That is, if they run out of ammo before they run out of targets.

I wouldn't mind missiles quite so much if they were balanced according to the slot they take. A 10-use sidewinder would still be more useful to most players than a single gun.

---

[Jack_Henderson]

I went all the way from a defender of missiles to someone who also thinks they need to be restricted somehow.

While it is really good that they work finally, and track, and hit... their damage potential is much too big. In group fights where people focus and where re-supplying is common, a missile-spamming group can just force a player down who cannot do anything at all. No one can. Especially when - after a certain amount of missiles or rocks and in special systems - there is no missile warning any more.

Reducing damage seems essential.

If you think that missiles are good the way they are... be target to 3-4 missile snubs. You'll see how ridiculous that can be.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[tommyt127]

Just use light countermeasures. You can carry 140

Maybe explosion range needs to go down. Fighter guns are lost too easily with missiles
Same with battleship ones

---

Trouble reaching me on the forums? Skype tommyt127 and comment in the invite so I know what it's about.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Spoiler

the game

[Haste]

Just use light countermeasures. You can carry 140

Yes. And you usually end up having to use three or four to actually make that nasty missile warning (if you're lucky enough to get one) actually disappear. That's four CMs for one missile. Generally, if enough missiles are being fired at you can only successfully CM a portion of them, so you're still going to lose 5-6 nanobots a missile (that can quickly add up if you're being hit by two or three at a time) regardless of what you're doing.

My opinion is that they should either be restricted severely considering their slot (again, I don't think anyone would dare to argue that one missile launcher is equal to one gun in any scenario), or the slot should be swapped for a more significant one. In addition, there'd probably still have to be ammo reductions.

If missiles have to be a thing, let them be a tactical, additional punch on top of your main armament: guns. At the moment, guns are a secondary weapon whereas missiles are the primary weapon. This, however, doesn't make sense if the 'secondary' weapon takes 5/6 or 6/7 of the available weapon slots.

I've experimented with putting missiles on the mine launcher slot. Works fine, even if the hardpoint may have to be moved for some ships to avoid graphical ugliness (missiles moving through the ship and such). I think it'd be more reasonable to offer people the choice of: "Do you want 50 nuclear mines, or 10-15 sidewinders?". Some people will argue that they'll always pick nukes, but I know for sure I'd rather have sidewinders in a group fight than nukes, regardless of numbers.

---

[Vigilia.Procuratio]

GIT GUT U GIT

Anyway, maybe it should be either a missile launcher or disruptor (like torpedoes).

[Omi]

Some day I'll make missiles mandatory on all non-shotgun GRN| Lynxes.

Then maybe we can raise some "missiles in group fights" awareness.

---

[Karst]

Basically what Haste said.

The problem with missiles is the massive disparity between the skill level required to use them, and the skill level required to avoid them.
Using them consists of pressing a button, while fighting them successfully means permanent, maximum alertness, focusing almost your entire energy on fancy dodging and well-timed CMs.
Even if you do manage to avoid the majority of them, you lose, because doing so means you weren't doing anything else in the fight.
The same basic principle is true for Starkillers in duels, although they're nowhere near as problematic.

The solution is actually very simple: As it stands a missile is always better than a gun in that slot. Until you run out of ammo that is, but that won't happen in an average fight.
If the ammo is simply drastically reduced, it may be worth not using one since it becomes useless fairly quickly. It also means they can't be spammed recklessly.

(Show me a Light Fighter on which I can mount the missile.)

All light fighters can use missiles. They go in the CD slot.

---

[Fluffyball]

So you want less missiles? Good, but then make them as deadly as torpedoes + rise their range up to 5-K. As far as I am concerned, the most hull taking missile (Sidewinder?) is useless if the player has Armor Unit. But we have one problem that is kinda bad for usage of long range missiles:

The shield, which regenerates rather fast and blocks even the most deadly strike with even 1 shield point. You hit the ship, but it wasn't damaged? Oh well, it must be that 10 shield points and viola, you wasted a 50 000 damage worth missile on the damn 10 shield points.

(Note that I am talking about long range combat.)

On the other hand, I dunno how coding works, but I would make the other thing: long range combat. Some missiles (both in real life or simulators) are useless if the target is too close. Why not to make missiles useless and non-targetable, while target is closer than 2-K?

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138636
Time left: (Permanent)

[nOmnomnOm]

Why do you want to nerf. I thought people wanted to have fast pews now.
You know you will never please everyone around here.
I just say keep it.

And its called CD the missiles :|
Done

Nerf this nerf that just because YOU dont like it but others do.
I dont like fighting against the saber and the outcast VHF but I won't say to nerf it.

---