No.

That is someone with no apparent clue on how missiles truly work coming up with ideas on how to fix them. OP has had a spree of poorly conceived ideas trying to fix things that aren't broken. Suspect OP's buddy decided to stop playing and gave OP his account, as no 2006 player should be as clueless as OP appears to be. Either that, or OP is troll.

Well, giving a phoenix upwards of 90k alpha against every target in the game would be...different I suppose.

Now, nobody uses defender missiles because they simply do not work effectively. Nor can you say missiles would be balanced entirely around interceptors being able to outrun them.

If the drake had the taranis at 0, fired caldari navy scourge, which travel at slightly over 6km/s with my skills, then the taranis would be destroyed in a single hit.

Given that no other weapon system completely ignores the size of your targets, why should missiles?

Well, giving a phoenix upwards of 90k alpha against every target in the game would be...different I suppose.

Now, nobody uses defender missiles because they simply do not work effectively. Nor can you say missiles would be balanced entirely around interceptors being able to outrun them.

If the drake had the taranis at 0, fired caldari navy scourge, which travel at slightly over 6km/s with my skills, then the taranis would be destroyed in a single hit.

Given that no other weapon system completely ignores the size of your targets, why should missiles?

A troll thread.

Explosion Radius Mechanic is used because missiles don't miss.
no matter how fast or slow they always hit. unlike the rest of the weapon systems that require a lot more...

It is up there but not close to the worst.

and

No, I won't mention this one to devs unless over beers and laughing

m

Came to this thread expecting an actual discussion.
Definitely not what I found :(

If we are going to ask for absurd things, I wan't my cruise missile kestrals back :D

Suicide ganking in this for the win.

But besides that, I do believe missile damage should be looked at, so I'll leave that comment here.

Short range missile is too short. I think something like 50% increase in torpedoes, heavy assault missiles and rockets may be in order. 100% is asking for too much. Guns have falloff which still allow for hits, but missiles dont have that luxury. Maybe my suggestions are biased, who knows. I would like some loving to short range missiles though :)

Son, you should be very, very careful what you claim.

[quote=elitatwo]I know from experience that it will not be as bad as you think it will be.

OP, I agree with you that missiles could use some love in multiple regards (both internal balance and balance relative to turrets), but what you are proposing is simply too much. If you feel that missiles aren't applying sufficient damage, why not propose buffing their damage application stats instead of changing the underlying mechanics behind how missile damage is calculated?

Do you remember the days of perfect application cruise missile Kestrels that would one-volley other frigates? CCP went out of their way to rectify that situation by changing missile mechanics, and what you're proposing would undo much of that rectification.

I understand the notion that turrets and missiles should be different and fully support that notion. But granting one of the two full damage application would fundamentally alter both the balance of turrets and missiles and the balance of different-sized ships.

-1

-snip-
1. Not true, if your target is orbiting you your missiles must chase that target, reducing effective range. If your target is burning away from you, ie is a kiting ship (like 90% of smallish fights these days) your missiles will not be acting in their full range.

2: Cruisers use the same missiles as battlecruisers (HAMs), and a Caracal can't afford two mids to web a target, plus a point and MWD, that leaves just one slot for tank.

Come now, I need to scram web a shield tanked battlecruiser, in order to get full [utterly anaemic] DPS onto it with a cruiser size weapon?

Whilst the fact that is nearly true is depressing, it is not reasonable. If the DPS was insane, I could get behind it, but it is not.

Low base DPS coupled with terrible application is a horrid place to be in.

Your drake examples just nails the point home further.

Imagine if turrets needed to be shooting up a size class AND need the target scram/webbed to break 200 dps....

...It should be noted that if you are in a missile ship and your opponent is chasing you, a missile's range is effectively increased.

turning yes. but thats turning.

just the same when you are chasing an opponent who is not flying directly away your missiles track ahead of him slightly (not perfectly) to minimise distance lost to a moving target. They do have some motion prediction.

this is why missiles start spasming when tracking extremely fast targets (like light drones orbiting with MWD's still active)

.. street addresses and postal codes in order to deliver their payload.....

..If you have to keep building in cases like these into your argument, then you need to take a closer look at your argument. Also, almost all of your arguments are cases where missiles aren't good, and you're ignoring all of their positive sides.

Every missile-based ship I fly gets a bonus to either damage or rate-of-fire. It takes ten seconds to switch damage types. That's a huge bonus. You also usually have better range, for engagements with the same class of ship; ~20km HAMs as opposed to the ~3km of neutron blasters (or ~10km with null).

Also, your missiles don't have reduced "tracking" based on your own movement, either. If an enemy ship is tracking you better, you can cut your afterburner on, for example, and you're still hitting him the same. As opposed to a blaster ship, where increasing your transversal velocity can penalize you, too.

See, missiles have a supposed buff in the ability to switch damage types, but this takes up to 10 seconds regardless of the size of the ship. 10 seconds for a battleship to switch to ammo to take advantage of a discovered resistance weakness is much easier than 10 seconds of a frigate switching ammo to do the same in a real no holds barred pvp environment.

It's a huge bonus unless you're locked (or part locked) to a damage type.

Suicide stealth bombers.. I think I just came.

...You keep using these very, very specific examples, and you keep taking stats from different examples and comparing them. "He's kiting with null, so he'll outrun my missiles. But antimatter does more damage than missiles, so that's why kiting with null makes missiles bad. Well, that example only really worked with that one ship, so I'll mention another ship, but now I'll bring in reactive hardeners to show why missiles are bad."

-snip-
Anyway, removing missile tracking, a torpedo Raven with have a 5,500 damage volley (navy ammo, not even rage ammo) within 30km (more, if you include rigs), and it will be applying all of that damage. No cruiser could even get close enough to point you, because you WILL kill it in a few volleys. Frigates and destroyers will be immediately blapped. A close-range brawling fit battleship can probably take you on, but it will really hurt in the time it takes to get close enough to brawl you. That's just a standard Raven. A Barghest will have a 7,800 damage volley with perfect application to anything close enough to put a long-point on you. A Phoenix will have a 110,000 damage volley...

-sanip-Resist profile. Are you saying that resist profile somehow applies more to missiles than it does for any other weapon (when more than half of the missile-based ships can easily switch damage types)?

Okay, feel like sharing your reason with the rest of the class?

...Also change missile specialization skills from "ROF bonus" to "bonus to Explosion Radius."

You are wrong. (& delusional)

Resists apply just the same to missile damage as to gun damage.

Doesn't mean there aren't other issues obviously, but these are best fixed by comparing the base application values like I said before to an unfitted ship. Rather than trying to band-aid the problem with skills.

Which is outside of point range, by the way. Also, Javelin gives you even further range. You could outrun them, but that's further out of point range.
Sensor damp does nothing for the ships tackling you, like in my example.
As opposed to my example of a dual-ancil Torp Raven as the hammer in a tackle fleet, which is pretty damn realistic.

And here we go again. "Missiles aren't as good as guns because sentry drones."