OOORRRRR nerf HAMs range. To around say 15kms. Which you could get to around 25-30 with tracking enhancers. Just like med autocannons! Then torpedos could get to 30-40 with the TEs, still better than blasters right? Right?

I like my idea better.

Orrrr... We could wait until missile changes hit test and see where things actually stand. Given that we have no clue what TEs/TCs will do for missiles it's kind of hard to prescribe specific changes right now, isn't it?

Oh, and you're discounting flares, which do in fact help unguided missiles. It's only rigors that don't work.

As I've already gone into the issue elsewhere I'll just link to the thread.

Linky linky

TL;DR:
Short range systems have higher absolute accuracy but long range systems tend to have much higher effective tracking when operating at their intended range - therefore missiles, with the long range system having the higher effective tracking, are in keeping with this trend.

RTL;DERT:
Working as intended.

EDIT:

Trading damage application for raw DPS is arguably the most important aspect of balancing any weapon system in any game ever. This is working as intended.

Blah Blah Blah, you're a scrub and I'm a tough guy that hides behind an NPC alt

From my last post:


Also aren't most cruisers in the 125m sig radius anyway?

Oh and it's also worth noting that heavy missiles are laughably OP, and have been for ages, arguing that HAMs are worse than heavies doesn't really mean anything when the same can be said of literally every single medium weapon system in the game, both close AND long range, but then I already mentioned that, had you bothered to read my last post.

You haven't actually explained why any of this is BAD. All you're doing is making that claim that heavy assault missiles are worse than heavy missiles.

You know what? So are medium blasters, rails, pulses, beams, ACs and artillery, let's boost all of them \o/.

Needing webs to apply damage to targets is not a big deal, and is in no way indicative of HAMs needing a buff. You're also ignoring the other (MUCH more used) half of the medium weapon spectrum, namely BCs, to which you should have no problem applying full DPS.

You have, and it's been acknowledged. In fact, I don't think anyone in the thread is contesting that point. But we also know a few more things.

First, many short range weapon systems struggle to apply damage without ancillary modules. HAMs need the same (usually in the form of a web).

Second, HAM damage application is going up in completely unknown ways. Until we know more about how TCs/TEs are going to help them it's rather hard to say what, if anything, should be tweaked about their base stats.

Third, as missiles, HAMs rely on a narrow analysis of damage application. Turrets don't. This means that while HAM damage is always reduced by a set amount relative to signature radius, they also always apply that much damage. The same cannot be said of turrets in either case.

Would you agree to any of the above? Forget arguing about what should change, would you at least accept those premises?



I'd suggest dropping this line. It's not going to get anyone anywhere.

i always thought it was pretty stupid from day one to have missile skills that dont effect all the missiles.

Lets change motion prediction skill so it only effects long range weapon platforms! no? exactly.