3. Remove ship penalties from T2 missiles

Eh what?

So last night I watched many of the fanfest video archives and happened upon the last which featured a discussion of upcoming module additions and changes. What caught my eye was the announcement of an intended change to tracking disrupters so they will apply to missiles.

The presenter did not explain how they would debuff missiles but it got me thinking......WTF!@(*&)

So if this happens I see no reason to not also do the following:

1. Allow tracking computers to buff missile stats
2. Allow tracking enhancers to buff missile stats
3. Remove ship penalties from T2 missiles

What say you?

it might be nice from a balance point of view to have tracking enhancers and tracking computers affect explosion velocity and/or explosion radius and/or missile velocity. i do not see the logic though; how is tracking your target making your missile explode faster?
also, you would have to nerf some missile types and/or hulls to keep overall balance, which isn't exactly an easy task.

except when the debuff only affects pvp and only in a limited manner whereas the 'counter'-buff would affect almost all missile platforms in almost all combat situations.

I'm Caldari/Amarr specced, I've flown mostly in PvE with occasional pvp splashed in and my opinion on missiles vs guns...

Missiles just generally get the shaft from CCP. Pretty much all missiles are outclassed by their gun equivalents except maybe Heavy Missiles but I think thats more of the ships that use them are awesome rather than the weapon system itself. Missiles problems (applying full damage, travel time) completely eclipse its largely useless benefits of stupidly long range that can't be used for sniping due to travel time, 'never miss' but almost never do full damage w/o alot of support that is limited to rigs or midslot items that have issues like activation range (web), cycle time (tp) and that most missile boats are also shield boats which lack free mids.

Honestly missiles can only claim to be not outclassed PvE because you can fit alot of mods to help damage application thus fully capitalizing on the range and fact that missiles never miss and flight time matters much less. I find it quite ridiculous that although many justify lack of TE/TC on missiles because missile never miss, Torps are absolute crap because they can only really do full damage on battleships with huge signatures that are moving at snails pace (w/ nothing you can do to actually help the torps much), obviously target painting and webbing helps, but that helps guns just as much which get instant damage, 'critical' (wrecking) shots, ability to abuse transversal to do full damage to even frigs. Also quite a few gun boats get tracking bonuses, assisting them even further while I can only think of 2 missile boats with damage application bonus (Golem/Nighthawk). All this and guns get all the upgrade luxury in the world in terms of damage/range/tracking in the form rigs/low slots/medium slots.

/rant

What we need: Highslot tracking enhancers just to completely crap all over missiles.

it might be nice from a balance point of view to have tracking enhancers and tracking computers affect explosion velocity and/or explosion radius and/or missile velocity. i do not see the logic though; how is tracking your target making your missile explode faster?
also, you would have to nerf some missile types and/or hulls to keep overall balance, which isn't exactly an easy task.

it might be nice from a balance point of view to have tracking enhancers and tracking computers affect explosion velocity and/or explosion radius and/or missile velocity. i do not see the logic though; how is tracking your target making your missile explode faster?
also, you would have to nerf some missile types and/or hulls to keep overall balance, which isn't exactly an easy task.

Strawman

I think the point is that if there is a module that will debuff the system then must also be a module to buff it.

So we should not balance around ships and modules themselves but the potential for blobs of those ships and modules? Seriously?

Oh look you figured out what a straw man is.

Yes, yes you should balance around how those modules are used in blobs, you should balance around how those modules are used in gangs and how they are used solo.

Numbers lining up on a spreadsheet of buffs and debuffs don't matter if you over power or under power anything. So if a module in a blob makes that blob over powered and the counter designed is ineffective you can not just go with it.

Turrets were designed with module and rig buffs in mind while missiles were designed with only rig buffs in mind. If you want missiles to use module buffs you have to design ether the ship or the missile around it because the counter doesn't stack well.

The same should not be done when assigning a module to debuff them of course

ughh more homoginizing...? Lets change the name to "Weapon Disruption Unit I" while we're at it.

Absolutely it should. You should take everything into account when balancing a weapon system.

What effect the debuff will have on solo or small gang ships, what effect it will have on blobed ships vs what effect the buff will have on solo / small gang ships vs what effect it will have on blobs.

You can not just add something just to have the buffs and debuffs line up on a spread sheet. You need to know how they will effect all aspects of warfare.

Based on your sudden moment of clarity I suggest you re read the OP

CCP plans to make tracking disrupters debuff missiles.Based on this alone I suggested they should add modules that enhance missiles.

If you have no objection to that.....

why are you posting again?

Read the OP and understood it perfectly.

I have no objection to them adding the buffs, I have an objection to them adding and not balancing around them which brings me to why I am posting.

Reason #1. Because when Daniel Plain brought up needing to rebalance missiles you incorrectly called it a straw man and ignored it. He is right they need to rebalance them.

Reason #2. You stated that you should balance around ships and modules themselves instead of how they should be used on all fields of game play. Changing things so buffs and debuffs line up on a spreadsheet without taking into account the greater gameplay effect hurts the game.

Reason #3. You asked "What say you?" at the end of your OP. I say I like the idea but they need to rebalance and can not just shove it in a new module effect without seeing how it will effect the game.

Also, I stand by my original evaluation of a strawman. The fallacy offered was that any plan to buff missiles by way of modules might make the systems OP without a rebalance.

While I may or may not agree with the premise offered by that observation it had nothing to do with my post. CCP plans to allow a module that exist ingame to debuff missile tracking. Based on that I suggested the need for modules to offset this.

David sought to critique the overall effects of such a buffing module in a vacuum as if the debuff was not on the table. This was the only focus of his post and call for balance. You may not think that a misrepresentation of my argument (a strawman) but I clearly do and quite understand the concept.

Simply misrepresenting an argument does not a straw man make. A straw man is when you look at the argument and act like it is a different yet similar argument for the purpose of attacking it.

Yes he did take the debuff out of the argument and he did for a very specific reason. The targeted debuff doesn't play out in the same situations as a self buff when scaled. This leads to issues in scaled fights that have to be addressed as the debuff counter is ineffective and is a valid point to consider.

It is very similar to a straw man and if the debuff was just as effective as the buff in every situation it would be a straw man argument.

"I disagree with your suggested counter to CCP's plans because I think it would make Missile systems OP BUT I also think CCP should not go ahead with this change without rebalancing missiles in general perhaps with an eye toward adding modules that offset the debuff"


^^ That is NOT a strawman argument. It also is a balanced approach that has credibility. What's more it is NOT what either of you said.

Instead of addressing the original concern, CCP making disrupters affect missiles with no eye toward balancing that module in the process, you simply attacked my proposed counter.

Not once have you suggested that CCP is marching into this without balance. No critique at all about the disease only that the cure is not a balanced approach. So do you have any thoughts on having disrupters debuff missiles...without any talk about re-balancing missiles or introducing modules to counter them or is that just fine by you, Strawman?

Also, Post with your (CCP) main

This thread is not about TD's affecting missiles. We all understand that and have different opinions about this but this thread suggests of a counter to that. People are commenting on how said suggestion would be implemented. If you wanted a discussion thread on the TD Change and not your counter idea you should have posted 2 separate threads.
.

Actually this thread is about TD's affecting missiles. My proposed suggested counters were just that. Unrefined, knee jerk suggestions. Almost the same as CCP deciding to make this change in the first place. Somehow only two people did not get that. You are one of them.