If you like thus idea, you should check out the HM thread that I've been posting in. It has a similar idea, compounding faster max velocity and a damage from velocity factor.
As for not fitting into the lore, what else would kinetic damage be?
I do agree that warheads do damage in the other 3 cases though, but this could be justified in the lore by a convenient shift from standoff warheads to impact warheads that would apply based on agility or something. Just a thought whule my prof glares at me..

Perhaps there could be a mechanic for long range missiles in which they constantly accelerate toward their target and become faster the more time they spend in flight. This would help prevent the long waits for very long range missiles to arrive, without removing the wait time on mid-range shots. For example, a cruise missile might take 5 seconds to travel the first 50km, and another 5 seconds to travel the next 100km.

Furthermore, spending more time in flight could cause long range missiles to gain some damage, which helps to make up for the wait while also giving rise to a new style of gameplay: intentionally waiting longer for shots to hit in order to take advantage of improved damage. Could give rise to missile sniper tactics involving trying to hold the targets in place while shooting them down from very far away. It could also make flight time bonuses more viable, so that missile velocity isn't the only way to go.

if they gain incredible speed over time, wouldnt that mean that they have a chance of missing/overshooting the target if the target moves? resulting in something similar to trackingspeed for missiles?

this are two rather big buffs for longrange missiles, less flighttime and on top of that more damage. without any downside it might get a bit hard to balance.

+1

In addition missiles should carry all velocity from the shooter so flying your damn ship has an effect on their effectiveness. right now the execution demands on the pilot for missile boats begin and end with F1.

Perhaps there could be a mechanic for long range missiles in which they constantly accelerate toward their target and become faster the more time they spend in flight. This would help prevent the long waits for very long range missiles to arrive, without removing the wait time on mid-range shots. For example, a cruise missile might take 5 seconds to travel the first 50km, and another 5 seconds to travel the next 100km.

Furthermore, spending more time in flight could cause long range missiles to gain some damage, which helps to make up for the wait while also giving rise to a new style of gameplay: intentionally waiting longer for shots to hit in order to take advantage of improved damage. Could give rise to missile sniper tactics involving trying to hold the targets in place while shooting them down from very far away. It could also make flight time bonuses more viable, so that missile velocity isn't the only way to go.

Reaver, as much as I like the sentiment, it would breake EVE.

You have to remember that EVE is a relationale database and not a simulator. The client makes a visual representation of what is going on and where in a semi-fluid 3-dimensional grid.

If missiles would accelerate at those rate, the distance checks would go haywire and they will remove missiles for good.

The only thing that is messed up is that missiles don't apply the damage they could do for reasons that escape me.

On paper and in fitting tools missiles can already do enough damage. That theoretical maximum damage is reduced by the amount of resistances on shields / armor / hull and for mocking me a little more then seven years, the target speed.

Someone will probably say that missiles always hit - said the Sacrilege to the rail-deimos and died..

as long as you ship accelerates harder than the missiles you could avoid them as long as you're on your game. EVE ships have speed limits, these missiles have Dv budgets essentially.

another way to mitigate damage when flying slower ships would be to, fly prograde with the missiles velocity vector. ( reduce relative velocity.

yeah a weapon system that always hit is going to take penalties elsewhere.

perhaps making missiles need some form of range control like every other weapon system would be a better way to balance them out than to tweak their application, damage and projection values.

they are cruiser/bc+ size weapons. faction HM's do 4300 m/sec now without any boni ( https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Caldari_Navy_Mjolnir_Heavy_Missile ). if you increase this speed so that it really does make a difference, let's assume you double that max speed to 8k6 m/s, no cruiser+ size ship will be able to out-fly them, unless you start close to the missiles maximum range. but flying out of range is also possible against turret boats, so imho this downside is not really a special downside for missiles.

i could not find info on the acceleration, but it's much bigger than any cruiser iirc. so out-accelerating isn't an option unless you cripple the missiles base acceleration speed in the first place (please correct me if i'm wrong).

if you are fighting a fast ship, the horrible damage application of those missiles will be the issue (we're talking 81 m/sec explosion velocity on those faction mj+¦lnirs without boni). making missiles faster doesn't change that...

yeah a weapon system that always hit is going to take penalties elsewhere.

perhaps making missiles need some form of range control like every other weapon system would be a better way to balance them out than to tweak their application, damage and projection values.

...
Even if they lost a third of their range and a third of their DPS and a chunk of their damage application, It would still result in groups of ravens instablapping anything larger than an interceptor at well over 100KM.

From one of my old threads:

"...
Increasing max cruise missile flight speed to much more than current and greatly slowing down acceleration, while increasing explosion velocity and decreasing explosion radius proportionally as missiles go faster and farther. This way, at max range, target you hit would receive more damage than same target you hit close.
..."

You were also there Reaver

Talking about realism with a system where a ship can out fly an explosion and a ship smaller than the blast radius magically taking less damage......fools errand.

Balance beats reality all day long

Actually since missiles have a drawback at longer ranges (increased shot time to target) which turrets don't have, it could perhaps make sense for them to increase damage at longer range. Or perhaps them not losing damage at longer range is enough bonus.

You do realise that if you get more damage at longer range, you will get the arty treatment of reduced raw DPS right? Is this really what you want?

I was thinking more of a small damage increase, with the initial damage being the most important. Like, a cruise missile might make 3-6% more damage by the end of its flight, or 9-12% on a sniper battleship with range bonuses to cruises. Barghest would pretty much just get the base damage because its missiles would spend so little time in flight.

Then it does not make any sense if the barghest get's the lowest bonus since it has the fastest missile with more than likely the strongest acceleration.

12% increase is probably close to torpedo damage with extra range and application.

Space doesn't have wind or water resistance, so wouldn't missiles hit their max velocity very shortly after being launched? An engine only outputs so much power, and minus resistance that peak would be hit quickly. Infinite acceleration is not mechanically sound.

Only not sound because infinite fuel isnt possible. It will continue to accelerate until the fuel expires and then continue at that speed until the end of time and space. Or until a gravity well pulls it in/crashes/etc, but you get the idea.

Edit: The concept of max velocity only applies when accelerating into resistance.