The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.

Let me go over a few facts.

1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.

2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.

3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs.
What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal...
It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations.

tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords.

i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles

i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles

6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...

I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs

It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?

The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.

It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?

In shorthand:

• New powerful mods + new stacking penalties: Good
• New nerfed mods + old non-penalized stacking: Good
• New powerful mods + old non-penalized stacking: Overpowered
• New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered

Pretty much this. With the first pass CCP gave us too much, then to fix it they took too much away.

Called it 20 pages ago. This missile "package" is a brown paper bag full of feces left on a door step.

As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.

Modifying sensor damps might make more sense. Since it would be a gal counter to caldari weapon. Plus sensor dampening would make more sense against missiles than "tracking disruption". Damped sensors cant guide missiles as efficiently. Maybe an added script.

I've heard about these.. "defender missiles".. apparently you use them to stop incoming missiles.. never tried them though

The new application modules will specifically help address this issue, as long as you are willing to fit at least one.

I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that
A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par.
B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range.
C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king.

Perhaps in null-sec where engagements might be more likely to happen out in open space with large alpha fleets the range and application improvements might be worth while. But in FW space where most combat takes place on a button and where anything outside 20k just means you don't have point, your target leaves at will. So you can take your 100km range and ... well needless to say I don't want it. But pretty much everything lately seems to be all about the null-sec so I guess it's on deaf ears anyway.

This entire thing seems very poorly thought out and should not be introduced unless part of a fully worked package of missile ship balancing, DPS and EHP balancing, improvement module balancing, ammo balancing and counter-module balancing. This just reeks of the same lack of real consideration that was put into polarized modules.

If missiles are weak, buff missiles. Injecting new modules just complicates things and creates new issues all across the spectrum.

DON'T RELEASE CONTENT FOR THE SAKE OF "CONTENT"

Yes, the implication of what these do to bombers makes for an amazing alpha frigate.

And if you can script those missiles for increased velocity on a cerb you wouldn't?

Not even treating the symptoms, it will actively make it worse, since missiles will see a huge power boost against everything in the game except the toxic speed creep.

That said, missiles needed an update for a while now, so I am glad they are being looked at. And that further said, I do not think this is the way to go about it. But, one way or another, our feedback really hasn't mattered in a long time about things like this, so we will wait and see, and probably laugh about the inevitable unforeseen consequences of these changes.

We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future.

Let us know what you think!

Lock range 72km.

Whats the lock range with 3 sensor disruptors on (celestis)? Point of argument is people saying no ewar currently counters missiles.

Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen.


Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong.

Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom.

This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats.