After the last day, I have actually seen how missile ships do under various circumstances. They are much closer to becoming functional. What I would like to see is the fire rate removed from their lists. Instead list three fire rates. The one at minimum reload distance. The one at half fuel consumption. The one at full fuel consumption. While I can guesstimate, it would make building the missile ships much easier if I had that information at hand. The other reason for replacing this is that as of now, this information is very misleading. To the point where it can cause serious frustration. In me at least.
That would probably help, but I’d still like to see the current system changed. Making a launcher wait until it’s missile expires before firing again is annoying and seems counter-intuitive. Maybe make that the difference between rockets and missiles (rockets are dumb-fire, so they can be shot off as fast as possible, whereas missiles need to be guided, so there can only be one in the air). Or, let everything shoot at the fastest rate and make PD more effective, like giving it longer range. I’d rather ships be better at countering long-range missiles than that firing missiles long-range incur a non-obvious penalty in rate of fire.
Or add a missile control computer system to the mix that allows launchers to control up to two missile salvos at a time, or missile control II which allows 3.
I really don’t like the fact that missile launchers wait to fire at all (with the exception of reload time). Its not intuitive, it makes missiles less effective, and the battle is less gratuitous (fewer missiles and explosions going on at the same time). My vote is to fix this
I really agree with serpent. The missile guidence system is a great idea. I would say though that the missile painter should take care of that already.
To the above, this game is not intuitive. I still think something needs to be done about the missiles, but at this point, it is down to small adjustments. It would be very easy to OP them. If missiles were firing at the rates that they are listed, they would be unstoppable. I think disclosure and a few minor adjustments, and they would be good to go. The last patch’s fix to missiles actually helped a bunch. Though it is visually jarring. I think that animation could use at least an explosion or something. To just have them disappear I find disconcerting.
Adding a new module just to unlock missiles full potential seems unnecessary. Adding that functionality to the target painter would be better, but still not optimal.
I still don’t see a good reason to keep missiles the way they are (waiting for other missiles before firing). Reasons listed against fixing this boil down to “its not that bad, and besides, the rest of the game is confusing too”. Balance concerns are easily solved by adjusting their fire interval if it comes down to it, and its not like missiles are perfectly balanced as they are right now
I don’t want to sound overly negative here, I think the game is fantastic and I am really enjoying it. The missile fire rate just sticks out to me as a little thing that needs fixed. And really, a huge motivating factor for me is I want to see more missiles and explosions going on at the same time
I agree that the single-volley restriction on missiles is kind of weird. I actually think it’s a clever mechanic, generally speaking, but I feel like it’s out of place on missiles. I know Cliff has said that the point is to force missile users to make a tradeoff between the safety of longer range and the increased power of short range, but that feels contradictory to what missiles are supposed to be about - in my mind, long-range support that’s very vulnerable to close-range attack.
In fact, it even makes the logical counter to missiles (get in as close as possible and unload your higher-DPS, short-range weapons) less effective. Obviously it helps to get inside a missile ship’s minimum range, but there are limits to how feasible that is in many situations. If nothing else, the target ship probably has other missile-bearing friends that will still be perfectly able to fire at your ships, and which will be getting the best possible ROF all the while.
Bottom line, I’d rather see missiles balanced so they can perform their long-range standoff role properly without the single-volley restriction.
If not missiles then certainly torpedoes. My Navy friend is fond of reminding me that torpedoes are self guiding whereas missiles are guided by the launcher. Fire and forget. If you paid extra (either in weight or range) for missiles that did that then it could add some flavor. I’d also like to see some very short ranged very fast firing missiles… half the fuel but twice the warhead. BOOM!
the navy obviously doesn’t deal with fire and forget missiles. i hear the airforce is quite keen on those … what with not really wanting to be ‘stationary’ long enough to watch a missile into the target.
… and hang on - lots of torpedoes are(/were) wire-guided from the firer…??
I’ve mentioned before but I’d like to see more types of special missile like the disruptor and ECM missile. Eg a tractor beam missile that drags fighters with it or a missile that stop repairs for a moment or a missile that stops shields recharging for a moment that kind of thing.
It would make for a wicked mixed fleet. Increase the minimum range (say 600), but increase the max a bit (say 1200). Use the real firing times. Then have two platforms in the back, and a few short range nasties in the front with a few slaved torpedo and dog fighters on the forward formation. Heavy armor on the platforms and low engines. High engines on the nasties, escort and keep moving.
And while I am dreaming…
Missiles really should be the long range solution.
A Navy ship is perfectly capable of firing several missiles and guiding them all simultaneously. Personally, I agree with Supraluminal in the desire to see missiles balanced around a stable firing rate. But if missiles do stay the same and guidance difficulties are cited as a reason to limit the refire rate, I believe that call should be made with gameplay concerns foremost in mind, rather than based on a pursuit of realism.