Missiles still need a buff

Dinsy

Dinsy
Deadspin said:
Yeah, the heat from packhound racks doesn't really equate to a fair trade in terms of the limited amount of damage you do with them. I was all excited for them but when I finally got them I was incredibly disappointed by the need to fire off a heat sync if I wanted to fire more than one volley and, to top it off, I might do 3-5% damage to a larger ship. Multicannons ARE more effective and would be even if missiles offered the same amount of damage due simply to the fact that, with a max size Class 2 launcher, you can only carry 18 missiles.

I had a Python setup with 3x C3 (G) Pulse and 2x C2 Guided Launchers and while it was fun (I was merit farming) the need to dock up and restock after 5-6 encounters, while Multi's would probably still have half of their reserve, was annoying.

I was only using 2-4 missiles per ship and only if they were under a certain size. If it was anything Asp or bigger I didn't even hit my secondary fire and just concentrated on them with the pulse lasers until their power plants popped.
Click to expand...

Same as my usual python set-up. I just love using missiles. Do use the pack hounds now, just because of how pretty they are.

I don't think I've met anyone who has defended the packhounds, only use is to overwhelm point defences, and even then damage is sooo low that it's hardly worth it anyway
 

DaveB

DaveB
Lysander lysan said:
Missiles don't need to be a super weapon, however as they are now, they are not acting as one would expect. Make different types of missiles, anti shield missiles etc. The problem right now is that you don't fear the missiles at all. Maybe FD need to add a missile lock warning to add the awareness of different treats to the pilot?
Click to expand...

Back in beta when this discussion came up I suggested modular missiles - when reloading you picked your missiles configuration(s) and their firing order. Configuration could be s/m/l boosters, seeker type (none, heat, home-on-shields, module-seeking) and warhead type (standard, anti-shield, penetrator) - missiles with larger boosters would be higher acceleration and harder to intercept, but couldn't fit the most capable seekers or the largest/most effective warheads, or you could stack your rack with a standard booster in slot 1 and a large booster in slot 2 effectively giving you a TOT salvo of two missiles from a single rack.. Picking your missile loadout would then be an important tactical decision... "Two stacked anti shield warheads in both racks followed by a penetrator with a module-seeker in one and a standard warhead in the other... " You could have a more tactical loadout decision on the defensive end too, say have the standard seekers decoyed by chaff or silent running, the home-on-shields type impossible to decoy except by shutting down your shields, ECM being most effective against module-homing seekers, point defense effective against all types but less so against the faster missiles...

I know it would be a lot of work for FD and would take some balance testing, but it would be another dimension of tactical depth.
 

TheSisko

TheSisko
Didn't FD already state that they were considering missiles being more effective when targeted at hard-points?
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
Deadspin said:
That's what you get for using C1 missiles.
Missiles received a slight buff to shield damage. Nothing more.




I would love to see some C3/4 missile racks, yes please! I would also like to see missiles handled differently in terms of loading/unloading. A C2 missile rack, seeker, holds 18 missiles that can be fired in groups of six. This makes no sense since the physical model of the missile launcher is an 18 point tiered launcher. To make them even slightly more viable, with no further buffs, they should hold upwards of 36 missiles (enough for a single reload of the entire launcher/hardpoint).

I enjoy how the pack hound missiles work but even running two of those is a pain in the ass since the heat they run up is almost as bad as firing 3 C3 beams continuously on a Python. The launcher is external to the ship, heat transference should be non-existent and dissipated through external heat syncs built into the launcher itself.



If missiles pierced shields you would be able to have a field day on smaller ships. When I was running Seeker's on my Python I would use the C3 Pulse lasers to chew up the shield on an eagle/viper/cobra and then launch a single salvo of two missiles. The damage rates were roughly 50-55%/30-40%/20-30% hull per salvo. Giving players the ability to negate shields of another player using a specific weapon type is bad for business.

Shields block debris from hitting your ship so it would make sense that they'd stop a missile, which is also moving slower than rounds fired by a multicannon/cannon/frag cannon/pac, all of which are stopped by a shield.
Click to expand...

Considering small ships can potential out-maneuver, shoot down (pdt or just using main weapons), scramble (ecm), or hide from (silent running) the missiles, I don't really see the problem.
 

Majinvash

Banned
Majinvash
With the Hull reinforcement slog fest that is the new PVP meta, matched with the really underwhelming large and huge kinetics we have available.

This really is the time to sort the missiles and torpedos out.

Majinvash
The Voice of Open
 

Arjin

Arjin
Missiles are indeed weak sauce, lost an interdiction recently and the NPC pilot manage to down my shields rather quickly, launched a missile and before it hit I was at 98% hull after it hit I was at 97%..

Giggled and jumped out after FSD was ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom