2.1 Missile Buff

[flyauburn41]

So now that we know it's happening, and will actually be "quite a significant" buff, according to FDev.

Some questions:

1.How will this be implemented and what effect will it have on the PvE, PvP, etc.?
2. If YOU were in charge of buffing missiles, how would you see it done?
3. Does this also include torpedoes?
4. Will multiple A0 shield boosters still be the Meta for defense, or will we all now need at least one point defense turret?
5. Will it be damage and ammo increase, speed increase, more module penetration, or what? (Similar to number 1. I know)
6. Will it make ships like the Federal Gunship suddenly scary and viable PvP alternatives, at the very least in a Wing, against large ships like the Conda and Vette?
7. In addition to the buff, will the engineers be able to make them even more powerful?
8. Will everybody suddenly want the faction Pack Hound missiles, and are they part of the buff?
9. Will the buff even be significant enough to force a change in the game (for the better IMO), or will it just be a failure as a buff?
10. Will there be HUGE missile/torpedo hard points? (Tactical nukes?!)
11. If we had VERY expensive tactical nuke torpedoes would there be a blast radius that would damage ships (including your own) in the vicinity? Would we have missions against capital ships using these with very High difficulty and huge payouts?
12. And finally, what other questions come to mind for you guys?

Discuss!

Edit: fixed the numbering, and I shall never lay off the whiskey!

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Not answering everything, don't have the time tbh but heres a few:

1) I think it was along the line of module splash damage and heavy surface damage so you can look at disabling hardpoints etc. Don't quote me on that.
3) IIrc yes it does
6) Not sure but they could make missile carrying ship launched fighters pretty amazing once targets shields are down, get in fast and close for dumbfires.
4&9) Since explosive damage is terrible vs shields I expect it will be a niche build and not affect the overall shield tank meta, however as many have proven with silent running builds sometimes the niche builds can be done exceptionally. Pilot skill is currently a big factor in making builds work.
10) Currently the only difference between class 1 and class 2 explosives is ammo count.
11) Existed on one of the original non-multiplayer Elite games if memory serves correctly. Can't be put on an MMo due to obvious balance issues in PvP.

 

[Derath]

Missiles only need a few changes,

Applicable damage for a none spammy weapon, reasonable lock-on or dumb-fire characteristics (not 100% hit, not 100% miss, not too slow or too fast projectiles for dumbfires) and a rate of fire appropriate for missiles.

At the moment they are ammo limited but not versatile enough to compensate for their ammo limitations - infact of the low ammo weapons I believe railguns are the only one that sees any real use. Missiles need to be mixed correctly for them to have any applicable use.

For example If heat seekers weren't auto countered by ECM/PD and almost always hit but did moderate damage I think they'd have a role currently - as it is they are far too variable for their damage, and if their damage was proportional to how unreliable they are they'd one shot everything and we'd have no stop complaints lol.

Dumbfires are harder to balance, because at base level there would be no difference between dumbfire launchers and a fixed cannon, one of them will invalidate the other. If dumbfires do extreme damage (as they did initially) they are your go to weapon for hull destruction, if they are too weak they get replaced because they follow the same rules as all other projectile weapons, the fact they are missiles is simply flavour.

I realise lots of that wasn't really answering the OP sorry was more of a ramble about general missile balance.

 

[TuxedoSteve]

For #5, I don't remember hearing where, but I recall mention that the buff, as well as getting an increase in general damage, will have the missiles do very good damage against modules that are close to the surface of a ship (hardpoints, utility mounts, anything too close to the outside) but not anything much further into the hull than that.

 

[Conch]

Everyone wants a stash of packhounds, i allready stocked up on them

and even if they dont do damage, they are still awesome.

 

[deathmagnet]

All missiles and torpedo's need to do is exactly what you expect them to be able to do. Massive explosion damage.

For example, the class 2 torpedo rack only carries 2 ammo. I need / expect for a torpedo to kill small ships with 1 shot , nearly kill medium size ships and cause heavy damage to large ships.

Regarding missiles they should follow the same damage scale as torpedos just not as effective. Hence the ability to carry more. Nearly kill small ships, heavy damage to medium ships and moderate damage to large ships.

They should be completely useless against shields.

 

[Tony.W]

I just want to fire a salvo of photon torpedoes (pattern F Mr Worf)

 

[Crimson Kaim]

So now that we know it's happening, and will actually be "quite a significant" buff, according to FDev.

Some questions:

1.How will this be implemented and what effect will it have on the PvE, PvP, etc.?
2. If YOU were in charge of buffing missiles, how would you see it done?
3. Does this also include torpedoes?
4. Will multiple A0 shield boosters still be the Meta for defense, or will we all now need at least one point defense turret?
5. Will it be damage and ammo increase, speed increase, more module penetration, or what? (Similar to number 1. I know)
6. Will it make ships like the Federal Gunship suddenly scary and viable PvP alternatives, at the very least in a Wing, against large ships like the Conda and Vette?
7. In addition to the buff, will the engineers be able to make them even more powerful?
8. Will everybody suddenly want the faction Pack Hound missiles, and are they part of the buff?
9. Will the buff even be significant enough to force a change in the game (for the better IMO), or will it just be a failure as a buff?
10. Will there be HUGE missile/torpedo hard points? (Tactical nukes?!)
11. If we had VERY expensive tactical nuke torpedoes would there be a blast radius that would damage ships (including your own) in the vicinity? Would we have missions against capital ships using these with very High difficulty and huge payouts?
13. And finally, what other questions come to mind for you guys?

Discuss!

1. Damage increased to hull, ignoring damage reductions.
2. Adding different kind of ammo/weapons for missiles that apply thermic or kinetic damage to suit special loadouts. Plus answer 1.
3. Don't know.
4. One PDT is usually not enough, especially against Pack-Hounds. Those things will be deadly. I think I will use ECMs.
5. Hopefully all of that!
6. Yes it definately will. hardpoint count is important.
7. I would claim different, but not stronger. Stronger would be a straight damage increase without a tradeoff like added heat output.
8. Not everyone but many probably will.
9. I suspect it will change the current HRP meta as missiles are "Hull Devourers". But it also could be a fail buff, sure, in this case nothing significant will change but since Sandro said "Significant buff" I assume it will have a HUGE impact.
10. Hopefully! But as of Newsletter 120# No informations about that so I think the answer will be "no".
11. lay aside the Whiskey, mate.
12. You forget that number.
13. How much damage will they deal against hull tankers? Will the RoF be the same as upon release for dumbfires? Can we have bombs? What are the "ZAAP!" "BOOM!" and "KATSCHING!" weapons Sandro talked about?

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

I just want to fire a salvo of photon torpedoes (pattern F Mr Worf)

That's why I play this as well.

[video=youtube;ThGS_6bp7Es]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThGS_6bp7Es[/video]

 

[AaronWatkins]

I can only answer #2 How would i do it.


1) Reduce the power plant drain for class two seekers, Dramatically reduce power plant drain for class two dumb fire (no way a "rocket" which is what an unguided missile ACTUALLY is requires that much power).
2) increase the ammo capacity as well as the price per missile/rocket for all by 50%
3) provide a new system where missiles can be pre-programmed to fire in 1's 2's or 3's.
4) allow for smaller missiles/rockets to be loaded into larger launchers whereby they do less damage (because they are smaller) but can have more fitted into them.


But that is just me.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

12. You forget that number.

+1 sat here laughing at my pc.

 

[Gryphorim]

Dumbfires are harder to balance, because at base level there would be no difference between dumbfire launchers and a fixed cannon, one of them will invalidate the other. If dumbfires do extreme damage (as they did initially) they are your go to weapon for hull destruction, if they are too weak they get replaced because they follow the same rules as all other projectile weapons, the fact they are missiles is simply flavour.

Give dumbfires a higher velocity and a greater range than cannons. This strategy would work for larger railguns, too, instead of increasing damage, increase range. Alternately, dumb missiles could do proximity explosive damage, requiring less accuracy but dealing lower peak damage.

 

[Zeta Legion]

So now that we know it's happening, and will actually be "quite a significant" buff, according to FDev.

Some questions:

1.How will this be implemented and what effect will it have on the PvE, PvP, etc.?
2. If YOU were in charge of buffing missiles, how would you see it done?
3. Does this also include torpedoes?
4. Will multiple A0 shield boosters still be the Meta for defense, or will we all now need at least one point defense turret?
5. Will it be damage and ammo increase, speed increase, more module penetration, or what? (Similar to number 1. I know)
6. Will it make ships like the Federal Gunship suddenly scary and viable PvP alternatives, at the very least in a Wing, against large ships like the Conda and Vette?
7. In addition to the buff, will the engineers be able to make them even more powerful?
8. Will everybody suddenly want the faction Pack Hound missiles, and are they part of the buff?
9. Will the buff even be significant enough to force a change in the game (for the better IMO), or will it just be a failure as a buff?
10. Will there be HUGE missile/torpedo hard points? (Tactical nukes?!)
11. If we had VERY expensive tactical nuke torpedoes would there be a blast radius that would damage ships (including your own) in the vicinity? Would we have missions against capital ships using these with very High difficulty and huge payouts?
12. And finally, what other questions come to mind for you guys?

Discuss!

Edit: fixed the numbering, and I shall never lay off the whiskey!

Some of these questions have considerable overlap.

2. I'd increase the ammo count to at LEAST 60 for C2's and 40 for C1's. C1 Torpedoes to 15 and C2 to 25. I'd make torpedoes powerful against both hull and shields and highly resistant to AMS turrets but reduce their tracking ability and speed. This would make them weak against small ships but powerful against large ships, and give EMP something of a niche to counter torpedoes. Seeker missiles should be very effective at module sniping but with a damage penalty against Power Plants to make them less of an IWIN button when shields go down, but great for picking off components one at a time. Dumbfires are currently most effective in a ground-attack role and should probably be further improved in that regard, maybe with a larger blast radius (HE missiles to the Seeker's AP missile if you will).

3. I believe it does but cannot confirm.

4. I really doubt missiles will be good enough to warrant using outside of PvP even when buffed. FD have this thing about using PvP to justify horribly cost/time-ineffective weapons like railguns and torpedoes continuing to be profoundly bad in PvE. Most NPC loadouts don't even include missiles, and when they do they almost never use them on anything bigger than a Vulture. I have never seen an NPC torpedo either, probably because NPC's have magical infinite ammo reserves.

6. The FGS will still suck because it is T-9 Tier maneuverable.

7. Probably. Engineers will be able to improve other weapons too though, so if they aren't viable at stock they probably won't suddenly become competitive once you slap an upgrade on them. Unless the missile upgrade is egregiously OP of course, which is just bad balancing.

8. Well since pretty much every faction weapon is vastly inferior to the original, I couldn't tell you.

9. See #4.

10. I hope not.

11. Such an improbably expensive weapon would simply be a waste of credits in virtually any normal circumstance. If you were winning, congrats, you just made negative money. If you were losing, you also just made negative money. These would pretty much just wind up as ridiculous trolling weapons for the ultra-wealthy.

 

[rdslw]

Part of the problems with current missiles is that it also invalidated PDT and ECM usage (bar hobbyist).
The moment we see significant (I hope) missiles buff, cmdrs will start using PDT/ECM which in efect makes balancing ships more difficult = interesting gameplay and lack of uber meta build.

I hope it will be done in rock scissors paper way somehow, putting my hope in Sandro wisdom here.

 

[CMDR Argent Steel]

I kind of hope missiles become the king of all damage. I don't really care about the specifics of how, but from what I know about explosives they are the number one way to break things instantly IRL. Nothing ruins your day faster than something that hits you faster than a bullet and explodes while it's doing so.

I would have the things instantly crash shields at the minimum. Due to the nature of explosions the overload of force would make sense in that scenario, and point defenses would become very valuable.

Also I don't much care about "balance" in PVP. Just speaking as myself, I don't think this is a PVP game.

 

[Surround]

Make PDT great again. (It's superb already but point using it)

 

[TheSisko]

When I first started playing this game I (foolishly) put point-defence on all my ships. Then I realised that missiles just ticked the shields of my ships and I removed point-defence from most of my hardware. So, its good that 2.1/1.6 will give me more to think about in this area.

As someone who first played Elite on my Acorn Electron, the incoming missile message was something to be truly feared (unless of course you had an ECM). So it would be great to go back to those days again, but not to the point where 1-shot = 1 kill.

 

[777Driver]

All missiles and torpedo's need to do is exactly what you expect them to be able to do. Massive explosion damage.

For example, the class 2 torpedo rack only carries 2 ammo. I need / expect for a torpedo to kill small ships with 1 shot , nearly kill medium size ships and cause heavy damage to large ships.

Regarding missiles they should follow the same damage scale as torpedos just not as effective. Hence the ability to carry more. Nearly kill small ships, heavy damage to medium ships and moderate damage to large ships.

They should be completely useless against shields.

Torpedo's already do a heavy amount of damage, you can easily one shot a small ship. you can also take out a Python (No armour) with a few torpedos. As far as I'm aware only missiles are seeing a change in damage stats