The game probably SHOULD have been designed that way tbh, with lesser missile travel times.

Right now, it makes NO sense in-game as to what is going on:

First, your ship computer starts like, "concentrating" on getting a lock. Somehow, this is detectable (charging railguns and firing rockets, of course, makes no such impression).

Once it has concentrated enough, then a missile can be fired.

Note that you can't even start this "concentration" until you have a missile loaded- it doesn't even work if you don't have a missile loaded (reload time, no missile equipped, out of missiles).

So you're left assuming that the missile lock is something that the missile is doing? Before it is launched? In which case, why can't you like lock multiples at once, or whatever?

Anyway, it doesn't make sense. Your change makes it like actual missiles in the real world and then increase the flight time though- I think that would be a pretty swell change if done properly.

I don't think the TTK calculated here has *much* importance. In an MMO there's the expectation of some degree of uptime that just isn't present in GSF.

 

I think it's fair to talk about whether there's response times and warnings and interactivities. Like when I complain about the TTK on scouts, it is largely because the scout can hard swap to a new target, pop a cooldown, and get a generally hard to counter kill, even while people are on him. Partly, this is an issue with latency as well- the scout's client is registering shots that you have no chance to really respond to, even if YOUR connection is flawless.

 

Gunships pop up here too, but the necessity of holding still to charge a shot means that there are meaningful counters, especially including cooldowns, line of sight, and heals.

 

Meanwhile, I think strikes are not threatening enough. The reliance on lock on missiles choreographs their interest and intents, and allows for meaningful counters pretty much every time.

Can't see the difference between "gunships need to hold still in 15km distance to get a hard to counter kill" and "scouts need to get into less than 3km range (or closer or pop cooldowns) to get a hard to coutner kill". It's not like that a scout is invisible. If you see one or more big triangles on the border of your firing arch (or whatever that circle is called), you should expect getting shot at and start evading. Also if a scout is able to kill someone even if he already is busy evading another person (or more than one?) and still can score a kill on someone else, he has earned it because either he trades his life against his target's or he is good enough to not get killed (or the person targeting the scout is just bad at aiming and that has nothing to do with scouts).

With me, the Burst Laser is a nerf. I can't hit with it very well.

I actually don't get many kills. I do damage and get a lot of assists.

I think it's fair to talk about whether there's response times and warnings and interactivities. Like when I complain about the TTK on scouts, it is largely because the scout can hard swap to a new target, pop a cooldown, and get a generally hard to counter kill, even while people are on him. Partly, this is an issue with latency as well- the scout's client is registering shots that you have no chance to really respond to, even if YOUR connection is flawless.

The issue is that they have the best offensive and defensive cooldowns, which lets them line up the shot in comparative safety.

The issue is that they have the best offensive and defensive cooldowns, which lets them line up the shot in comparative safety.

Oh, if you're talking about Distortion Field here, there are also some interesting things to say about their passive effective HP too.

Not every gunship pilot is shutdown by pressure. Nor is it difficult to apply pressure to a scout.

Incorrect, and trivially so. A good battle scout can shut down even an excellent gunship. Oh, he might race around and burst laser this or that, but railgunning requires being ROOTED for some time. You simply can't do that with a scout on you.

Oh, if you're talking about Distortion Field here, there are also some interesting things to say about their passive effective HP too.

I'm not entirely sure that their effective health is really that high. Remember, it's only high versus the stuff disto works against, which is definitely not all the things. A strike still has more ehp versus blasters, though the difference is probably smaller than it should be.

I think the devs have kind of put themselves in a bit of a corner. Many missiles have DEVASTATING status effects. Ion can snare, EMP can disable, concussion can snare, thermite disables charged plating and generally makes you swiss cheese while the debuff is active, and sab probe is a strong lockdown. These effects can't be countered with higher hit points very well, and that's all the guys without distortion end up with.

Distortion, on the other hand, has a different issue: it's entirely useless against missiles up until you get that missile break. A directional shield can be doublewhateverd against a missile, a qcc can quick charge after tanking a missile hit, even things that aren't even really shields, like repair probes, are better against a missile than distortion field, because at least they don't SHRINK your defenses like disto does.

So the tradeoff is that you get this powerful missile break, given that you are really in danger any other time.

I sort of wonder if maybe distortion field, while active, should simply reduce missile damage by a large amount- say, half. Not the halfway version of other damage reduction, but like, ACTUALLY REALLY halved, even a proton, thermite, concussion, etc. That's a massive nerf, and we frequently see suggestions along these lines, but if it were to happen we would definitely see a big change in the meta.

I'm nervous about such changes, personally.

Oh, if you're talking about Distortion Field here, there are also some interesting things to say about their passive effective HP too.

Pre- evasion nerf yes, not so much anymore.

Never heard of "passive effective HP".

Gunships can have Distortion Field too.

Anyway, to get back to the topic a bit. The TTK in GSF is still longer than it is in most FPS games. GSF is not typical RPG-PvP. It's not about to decide what CC to use or how to counter because there are basically 2 options if you encounter an enemy. 1. Attack 2. Retreat. Therefore you don't need a longer TTK because it wouldn't change anything. A skilled pilot will get you anyway.

A TTK of 1.3s against a stock scout under ideal circumstances means that against any other ship under not-so-ideal circumstances the TTK will be longer. The time between two shots of a Burst Laser is 0.65s with frequency capacitor. even with 150ms lag you would still have 0.5s to react and try to evade the second shot. Getting your reaction time to this level may take some practice (yes, you actually need to play that game if you want to get better) and awareness. If you know en enemy is within BLC range you can even start evading preemptively.

This all however does not take in account an other aspect of the game - Teamplay.

Yes - Distortion Field and Blaster Overcharge (or whatever people are using and complaining about at the moment, idk) are strong. But they actually have a cooldown. This means they get stronger the less targets are around. If the enemies approach one by one this means one or both cooldowns are ready for every enemy. This feels strong and, by the way, works especially well against gunship pilots that are hovering in space on their own without guard; but it becomes weaker and weaker the more enemies you approach. It may even become completely useless if a gunship is guarded by a bomber or his mines or if there are scouts/strikes or other gunships roaming the area of their gunships to protect them.

It may sound weird but acutally protecting a gunship and helping it to get more kills can be more efficient than trying to get a kill by yourself, although it may not look as awesome on the scoreboeard.

T2scouts are built around solo play and they fill that role exceptionally well but with just a small amount of teamplay there will be no danger from any lone T2scout at all. You may now want to say "if wee need to teamplay just for killing one person, that means this person is overpowered". This is not true. The purpose of teamplay is not killing only that one person but it is about using combined force to quickly defeat the enemy where he is strong and then move on to the next situation where one player alone would have no chance. (Imagine the attempt to attack a base in ground PvP - if there's one person defending, you'll send 2 to attack him and take the base quickly - does this mean that the single defending player is overpowered? No, but you're lowering the risk for your own team by sending an attack force that can do the job for sure.)

By the way, Distortion Field doesn't make you "immune" and you only get your passive evasion up to a maximum of 68% when active. If getting shot by more than one enemy Distortion field doesn't really help much.

So the point of this is, use the chat, get people playing as a team, tell them what ships may be helpful in what situation instead of sticking to just one and then complaining about its "underpoweredness" and you will see that neither TTK is too fast nor any specific ship is really overpowered at the moment (experience may vary from server to server). Some ships/builds profit by lack of teamplay others profit by teampaly itself and there are even some builds that are specific to certain situations and close to useless for others. There are different types of players, some are more or less aggressive, accurate and skilled than others and all those players will chose different ships fitting their playstyle (at least they should). While in the hands of one pilot a certain ship can be close to invincible, it may be almost useless in the hands of another. Mostly it's the pilot that's dangerous and not the ship.

Never heard of "passive effective HP".

Uh, it's just HP / (1 - passive mitigation).

Gunships can have Distortion Field too.

Yes, and so the unfortunate reality is that it's really hard to nerf that aspect of scouts without destroying gunships entirely. (Gunships NEED powerful DCDs because their offense imposes a hideous self-debuff - a root.)

Anyway, to get back to the topic a bit. The TTK in GSF is still longer than it is in most FPS games.

FPS characters are far more mobile and evasive than GSF starships. Consider how long it takes to turn around in GSF vs an FPS, or how quickly you can strafe aside.

GSF is not typical RPG-PvP. It's not about to decide what CC to use or how to counter because there are basically 2 options if you encounter an enemy. 1. Attack 2. Retreat. Therefore you don't need a longer TTK because it wouldn't change anything. A skilled pilot will get you anyway.

A longer TTK makes it more likely that you can actually choose the "retreat" option.

A TTK of 1.3s against a stock scout under ideal circumstances means that against any other ship under not-so-ideal circumstances the TTK will be longer.

Not really. The same combo kills a gunship in the same time.

The time between two shots of a Burst Laser is 0.65s with frequency capacitor. even with 150ms lag you would still have 0.5s to react and try to evade the second shot.

Outside of defensive/mobility cooldowns, ships in GSF have far less effective evasion than characters in an FPS, because there are pretty strong restrictions on the rate at which you can strafe or rotate.

Getting your reaction time to this level may take some practice (yes, you actually need to play that game if you want to get better) and awareness.

Your condescension is ridiculous given your interlocutor(s).

This all however does not take in account an other aspect of the game - Teamplay.

Yes - Distortion Field and Blaster Overcharge (or whatever people are using and complaining about at the moment, idk) are strong. But they actually have a cooldown. This means they get stronger the less targets are around. If the enemies approach one by one this means one or both cooldowns are ready for every enemy. This feels strong and, by the way, works especially well against gunship pilots that are hovering in space on their own without guard; but it becomes weaker and weaker the more enemies you approach.

Thank you for sharing the insight that an individual scout is less powerful versus multiple enemies than versus a single enemy. That's a really good catch!

blah blah more ignorant claims about teamwork

The only informed thing you said there was "oh yeah bombers are good versus scouts" - good job! Everything else totally misses the point that all of a T2 scout's strengths are based around negating enemy team to get a single kill. A T2 scout can get a short window of very potent offense AND defense, allowing it to isolate and kill one enemy, and it has the mobility to get out of the hairy situation before those defensive cooldowns end.

Hey verain I had a Thought, probably not a good thought but its a thought. What if missiles only gave the launch tone instead of giving the warning tone the entire time they were being locked, that would make them a little less choreographed.

I think this would mostly just make it easier for new pilots to use missile breaks properly. I suppose that would nerf missiles clearly enough that the devs would feel obliged to give them a bit more love.

What you want to do with a missile break, is use it after launch so that the missile is wasted. New pilots often freak out at the lock tones and waste the break prematurely, making it much easier to get missile hits on them 4-7 seconds after their misuse of the break.

Skilled pilots break after the launch tone, force a wasted missile, force a wasted reload time, and have time to sprint for cover if it's anything other than cluster (which can be tanked) or interdiction (which is supposed to be a royal pain).

There is the theoretical advantage of not having the lock time to run for a LOS break if you remove the tone, but with the long locking missiles that give you enough time to do this, either the flight time will be long enough for a break or LOS to work in most cases without the extra warning, or the missile launcher has set up so that you don't have enough time for a reaction regardless of warning.

Basically it would be nice for boosting noob v noob missile effectiveness and missile break effectiveness, but wouldn't be very useful if at least one of the pilots involved was of mediocre or better skill. Also removes the bluffing factor of the warning tone, which is sometimes much more useful in a fight than the incredibly slow missile that is producing those beeps. You'd also start getting complaints on the forums about the insta-gib uncounterable one-shots coming from p-torps, thermites, and concussions.

In terms of general TTK most things are in a pretty decent state right now. Mastered burst damage scout builds may kill a bit too quickly, and/or are maybe a teeny tiny bit too hard to get away from. On the other hand, in a Strike with 10 to 15k worth of survivability upgrades against anything other than said burst damage scout being piloted by an ace, good flying can give a TTK long enough for E.T. to build a holo terminal from a record player and call the First, Fifth, and any other fleet of your choice for reinforcements in bulk [intergalactic toll rates apply, additional service charges may apply, visit etphonehome.com for full terms and conditions].

Haven't seen that many complaints about survivability from pilots that main other ship classes, so presumably they feel that they're doing alright in the survivability department.

Offensively I think things are mostly o.k. There's no ship that's truly safe to ignore in the hands of a good pilot. Some ships have longer TTKs or require a lot more skill to achieve an equivalent TTK, but I think that mostly comes from different flavors of ships designed to appeal to different piloting styles at this point.

I sort of wonder if maybe distortion field, while active, should simply reduce missile damage by a large amount- say, half. Not the halfway version of other damage reduction, but like, ACTUALLY REALLY halved, even a proton, thermite, concussion, etc. That's a massive nerf, and we frequently see suggestions along these lines, but if it were to happen we would definitely see a big change in the meta.

I've got mixed feelings about this. In general half of a slow missile hit on something would be better than nothing, but it would also make tagging a T2 scout with a proton torpedo much less of a special occasion.

I think this would mostly just make it easier for new pilots to use missile breaks properly. I suppose that would nerf missiles clearly enough that the devs would feel obliged to give them a bit more love.

This is not a nerf. Missile warning tone is useful for more than just "oh I should use my break". It is an indicator that someone is attempting to attack you (usually with more than just missiles) and it gives you the option of breaking the lock by just getting out of the firing arc.

The game probably SHOULD have been designed that way tbh, with lesser missile travel times.

 

Right now, it makes NO sense in-game as to what is going on:

 

First, your ship computer starts like, "concentrating" on getting a lock. Somehow, this is detectable (charging railguns and firing rockets, of course, makes no such impression).

 

Once it has concentrated enough, then a missile can be fired.

 

Note that you can't even start this "concentration" until you have a missile loaded- it doesn't even work if you don't have a missile loaded (reload time, no missile equipped, out of missiles).

 

So you're left assuming that the missile lock is something that the missile is doing? Before it is launched? In which case, why can't you like lock multiples at once, or whatever?

 

Anyway, it doesn't make sense. Your change makes it like actual missiles in the real world and then increase the flight time though- I think that would be a pretty swell change if done properly.

It actually makes pretty reasonable sense. Systems to detect missile locks exist in the real world, and work similarly (although they wouldn't be able to tell when the lock was finally achieved). Radar-guided missiles have to actively ping the target with radar to acquire the lock, which is detectable.

If the missile itself contains the tracking radar (which it has to, given that it continues tracking even if your ship blows up) then it makes sense that the missile would not be able to start acquiring a lock until it is loaded into the firing tube and has the radar actually exposed.

As to why you can't lock multiple missiles at once, the answer is again "because the firing tube can only contain one missile at a time".

And of course neither railguns nor rockets would provide a warning tone like this - those are both aimed via passive telemetry only (i.e. optics).

I'm not entirely sure that their effective health is really that high. Remember, it's only high versus the stuff disto works against, which is definitely not all the things. A strike still has more ehp versus blasters, though the difference is probably smaller than it should be.

 

I think the devs have kind of put themselves in a bit of a corner. Many missiles have DEVASTATING status effects. Ion can snare, EMP can disable, concussion can snare, thermite disables charged plating and generally makes you swiss cheese while the debuff is active, and sab probe is a strong lockdown. These effects can't be countered with higher hit points very well, and that's all the guys without distortion end up with.

 

 

Distortion, on the other hand, has a different issue: it's entirely useless against missiles up until you get that missile break. A directional shield can be doublewhateverd against a missile, a qcc can quick charge after tanking a missile hit, even things that aren't even really shields, like repair probes, are better against a missile than distortion field, because at least they don't SHRINK your defenses like disto does.

 

So the tradeoff is that you get this powerful missile break, given that you are really in danger any other time.

 

 

I sort of wonder if maybe distortion field, while active, should simply reduce missile damage by a large amount- say, half. Not the halfway version of other damage reduction, but like, ACTUALLY REALLY halved, even a proton, thermite, concussion, etc. That's a massive nerf, and we frequently see suggestions along these lines, but if it were to happen we would definitely see a big change in the meta.

I have slight different point of view of how Shields have to be balanced : for me they should embrace having strengths and weaknesses. If they have a strength, then they need a weakness. Reversely, if it has no weakness, then should not have any particular strength.

That's why that for me, if DF is stronger against shots, it has to be weaker against something else. Or if DF does not have any particular weakness, then it has to not be superior against shots. That's also why I'm looking at EHP and things like this.

Though I'll admit that the game is in a strange state, where some weapons are devastating, have overlapping purposes, and where some component have mind boggling binary results, and this reasoning can't be applied unless every of these strange things are looked at.

If I'd have my hand on the game systems, only Interdiction would snare, shield ability disabling would be Ion's, energy drains would be EMP's, Charged Plating would not bleedthrough, and would not be ignored by anything, but would not be able to completely shut down anything either... to list design choices only.

But back on the DF topic. In my opinion, I see this component as the the component "that makes hard to shot at". So IMO, it has to have superior EHP against shots (and be noticably weaker againt anything else)

So I've done a few graphs to compare passive EHP of Scouts with DF to other things to verify they are better against shots, and see approximately how much better they are.

Details about the method :

1. Comparison between a Flashfire with Directional and a Flashfire with DF with and without Large Reactor.

Graph

The Flashfire with Directional is simply mentionned as "Flashfire" as the basic component do not alter any value, even though the +10% of shields from the upgrade has been taken into account. It is the only other compnent I compare DF to since it's one of the few that do not emphasizes any strength of shields, and I didn't compare to Quick-Charge since this component clearly takes risks towards EHP. The result would be biased.

It's not a surprise for me that the EHP of Flashfire w/ Directional against shots is globally beaten by the specialised nature of DF. Nothing to say in particular on this matter.

However, if we consider the second missile break as giving equal or higher resilience against missiles, then DF becomes superior to directional in almost every way. Remains mines as a weakness of DF, but directional are not that great either against them.

That's not fitting my ideal.

2. Comparison between a DF Flashfire And various Strike builds.

Graph. - EDIT : Raw EHP

It's a bit messy of a graph, it's like the previous graph but I put about any Strike build I could think of. Strikes are always considered with Directional with its 10% upgrade.

The FlashFire without Large Reactor is in there too, but there's is not particular reason

First thing I'm noticing, is that Evasion is really in much better place as a stat when I look at the curves of "Pike with DR" and "Pike with Evasion". Evasion is not vastly superior, but seems justified.

In there, Strikes *seem* okay. by generally having higher EHP.

But I can't help but to point out that most fights will be in situations represented by the right half of the graph, because of how weapons currently work... And I'll have to share your opinion that "the difference is probably smaller than it should be", considering they'll always be better offensive-wise at least thanks to their greater speed and turning, even before considering any systems.

EDIT : I added the a graph with the raw number of EHP, because I remembered that the relative EHP can dropwhile the absolute EHP difference would remain unchanged. That way we can see that EHP differences, relative and absolute, shrink.

I'm nervous about such changes, personally.

Now, I can get why changes on this component makes you nervous. It is very centric of the current meta, double breaks are sometimes seen as "plaguing the heavier missiles", accuracy/evasion is considered "the way to go"...

Lots of builds are either using, or accounting for this particular component's properties. Any change will have significant repercussions.

Personally, if I'd look at my first graph only, I'd simply remove the lock break so that both Directional and Distortion have pros and cons. (And give some breath to ships using heavier missiles)

If I'd look at my second graph only, I'd probably raise weapons' accuracy and/or reduce the tracking penalties so that Scout's EHP don't get too close to Strikes' (and reduce the importance of Accuracy/Evasion in the overall meta).

But objectively both would very likely be too much.

1. Comparison between a Flashfire with Directional and a Flashfire with DF with and without Large Reactor.

This is not a legit comparison. Directional shield's strength is about rapid shield regen (and secondarily that whole rebalancing shields thing), not about average-case EHP.

This is not a legit comparison. Directional shield's strength is about rapid shield regen (and secondarily that whole rebalancing shields thing), not about average-case EHP.

In that case I can compare to... nothing.

The reason I took this one is because there's the theory (not mine) that DF is neutral. I could have compared to "naked" ships because of this, and that's what I've initially done, but I didn't whant my comparisons to look biased : results where showing DF always above "naked", so DF was clearly not "neutral" and decided to compare to something that would also give a litlle bonus.

It's the only component that does not have stats that emphasize strongly on anything, is approximately neutral, is on most ships classes... and so can be used as a concrete example.

Some last things :

- trying to account for a possible regeneration that would matter, would be presumptuous. There is no way be sure that Directional could regen where DF would not. It's possible that Directional is never let "able to refill". It's also possible for both to be left refilling enough to at full strength again. It's possible for DF to have a luck streak where the shields will regen again and where Directional would not be able to because of the evasion difference. Too many variables to be taken into account, the better assumption is that none will refill.

- Trying to account for the shields rebalancing, would also need to the active evasion to be accounted. We wouldn't be in the passive area anymore

In that case I can compare to... nothing.

Yes, effectively comparing them mathematically is virtually impossible because they serve very different purposes. Directional is supposed to provide longer endurance under intermittent fire.

That said, distortion field is clearly superior to directional and every Flashfire should be using it.

Some last things :

- trying to account for a possible regeneration that would matter, would be presumptuous. There is no way be sure that Directional could regen where DF would not.

Directional is on a 1.2s lockout, DF is on a 6s lockout. It's very easy to be sure.

Directional is on a 1.2s lockout, DF is on a 6s lockout. It's very easy to be sure.

Only if Turbo Reactor is chosen. Large was chosen in the example for simplification.

Only if Turbo Reactor is chosen. Large was chosen in the example for simplification.

Turbo should always be chosen with directional.

It actually makes pretty reasonable sense. Systems to detect missile locks exist in the real world, and work similarly (although they wouldn't be able to tell when the lock was finally achieved). Radar-guided missiles have to actively ping the target with radar to acquire the lock, which is detectable.

 

If the missile itself contains the tracking radar (which it has to, given that it continues tracking even if your ship blows up) then it makes sense that the missile would not be able to start acquiring a lock until it is loaded into the firing tube and has the radar actually exposed.

 

As to why you can't lock multiple missiles at once, the answer is again "because the firing tube can only contain one missile at a time".

 

And of course neither railguns nor rockets would provide a warning tone like this - those are both aimed via passive telemetry only (i.e. optics).

Systems to detect missile locks do not exist in real life.

Systems to detect: radar illumination, laser illumination, blackbody radiation signatures typical of rocket/missile motors, and systems to detect (and sometimes also track) missiles in flight exist.

That may seem like a fine distinction, but it makes a really enormous difference in how the warning systems are used compared to detection of locks.

Target locks for actively guided missiles are obtained by a vehicle (in the past always the launch vehicle, but with data-links now in some cases any unit with a compatible data system and a view of the target is enough), are normally maintained by the vehicle until impact if possible, and with modern air to air radar systems it's usually difficult or impossible to tell if you're being locked or merely tracked based on the radar emissions.

Even active radar guided missiles are only going to emit for the terminal portion of their flight. Most of the way they use illumination from another source, data updates from another source, or use inertial navigation to fly to the predicted position of the target and turn on radar when they get close enough for their very weak radar systems to actually work.

In general the launch platform's detection and computational systems do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to finding and engaging targets. So lock establishment, number of targets tracked and locked, etc. is mostly going to be avionics limitations of the launch platform not missile guidance/seeker limitations. This even holds true to a large extent with modern IRST systems that are purely passive detection.

So Verain is well justified in calling it illogical. GSF missiles are very primitive for guided missiles, like pre-invention of transistor primitive.

The reason for that is very simple though. If you do a good job of simulating reasonable missile performance then firearms become so weak in comparison that dogfighting in the classic sense dies a swift and ugly death.

The reason I say firearms, is because in terms of range and travel speed GSF laser weaponry is not at all laser-like but is very firearm like. If they were more laser-like, for instance if shots traveled about 30000 times faster than they do in GSF and had 10 to 100 times the range, then missiles would be less of a problem. It would still kill dogfighting though, because you'd never survive closing to the range where extreme maneuvering would be needed.

Missile performance is really pretty silly in SWTOR, and so are blaster bolts that you can overtake and pass while flying on a thranta taxi on Alderaan. These absurdities exist for very sound game design reasons though, and more realism would mostly just make people very unhappy with the gameplay.

Turbo should always be chosen with directional.

Are you talking about T2 scouts only here? On a strike you're usually better off with a large reactor, I've tried the theory and the practice, and with very rare exceptions large reactor is a significant improvement over turbo.

Systems to detect missile locks do not exist in real life.

 

Systems to detect: radar illumination, laser illumination, blackbody radiation signatures typical of rocket/missile motors, and systems to detect (and sometimes also track) missiles in flight exist.

 

That may seem like a fine distinction, but it makes a really enormous difference in how the warning systems are used compared to detection of locks.

Yes, I am aware of this and aware of how irrelevant it is. This particular very old videogame trope is fine because

1. It has worked this way in video games for ages so everyone knows it and expects it.
   
2. It has some vaguely plausible grounding in reality.
   

Target locks for actively guided missiles are obtained by a vehicle (in the past always the launch vehicle, but with data-links now in some cases any unit with a compatible data system and a view of the target is enough), are normally maintained by the vehicle until impact if possible, and with modern air to air radar systems it's usually difficult or impossible to tell if you're being locked or merely tracked based on the radar emissions.

 

Even active radar guided missiles are only going to emit for the terminal portion of their flight. Most of the way they use illumination from another source, data updates from another source, or use inertial navigation to fly to the predicted position of the target and turn on radar when they get close enough for their very weak radar systems to actually work.

 

In general the launch platform's detection and computational systems do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to finding and engaging targets. So lock establishment, number of targets tracked and locked, etc. is mostly going to be avionics limitations of the launch platform not missile guidance/seeker limitations. This even holds true to a large extent with modern IRST systems that are purely passive detection.

 

So Verain is well justified in calling it illogical. GSF missiles are very primitive for guided missiles, like pre-invention of transistor primitive.

Thank you for explaining how modern automated systems are more sophisticated that the ones represented in Star Wars, which is something no one had noticed before.

Are you talking about T2 scouts only here? On a strike you're usually better off with a large reactor, I've tried the theory and the practice, and with very rare exceptions large reactor is a significant improvement over turbo.

I've done the math in multiple threads. Every ship with a reactor should choose Large Reactor, unless that ship is using Directional Shields in which case it should choose Turbo Reactor.

It actually makes pretty reasonable sense. Systems to detect missile locks exist in the real world, and work similarly

In the real world the system only works once the missile is IN FLIGHT. That's a very important difference- you'll find that it's exactly what tune suggests, and a big part of why I claim it is more realistic.

If my ship is able to "acquire a lock" through some set of detectable emissions, why can't I do that while the missile is reloading? We don't even have that.

Radar-guided missiles have to actively ping the target with radar to acquire the lock, which is detectable.

Everything is using radar then- you don't get a missile tone just because a bandit miles away COULD fire a missile. You get the tone when he does, because it isn't a missile lock until then. Same with heat seeking missiles.

If the missile itself contains the tracking radar (which it has to, given that it continues tracking even if your ship blows up) then it makes sense that the missile would not be able to start acquiring a lock until it is loaded into the firing tube and has the radar actually exposed.

This would be pretty ludicrous- clearly the missile should get the signal from the fighter- but it seems to be the only way to interpret things. Hence my critique.

And of course neither railguns nor rockets would provide a warning tone like this - those are both aimed via passive telemetry only (i.e. optics).

In the real world, the infrared signature is more than enough, and rockets would have plenty of this. Railguns not so much, but they do optically glow like tiny suns.

The point is mostly that if the missiles had slower relative speeds but didn't make a tone until they were launched, we would probably see a very different meta, and maybe a better one. I'm not really sure. Certainly missiles are a potent force in the game right now, given that which ships are top tier and which are not has a decent amount of correlation with having access to a second missile break. It's far from the ONLY thing, however.

I also dislike that missile toning an enemy who runs away has no way of being monitored or metered and gets no glory. If I'm on my Clarion and someone is running at a satellite, I'll tone them, and they'll:

> Missile break and run away.

> Missile break and get swapped to by others.

> Manually dodge

> Hold break for if I fire, which I might. If I do that, then the first two still hold.

These are all useful actions caused without me firing the missile, or in one case WITH firing the missile- but zero of these things deal any damage at all.

If I instead had a railgun, the opponent is, in my experience, more likely to take a hit. A really good player, the odds are much closer, but I can still hit a top tier player with a railgun, but it takes a mistake to tank a missile on, say, a scout. I find the opposite is true as well- an enemy gunship can rail me any time I'm in line of sight, but tanking a missile mostly means I was out of CDs and anything was going to kill me.

This isn't about nerfing railguns, or pods, or whatever- it is more that the lockon information provided by the missile UI is wildly generous compared to any other form of displayed information in this game. The rest of the game is like "you are sort of taking damage from this direction", an amount of damage that can easily exceed 1,000. There's no proximity warning for being within 3000 meters of a scout. I mean, thinking logically, you'd want your ship to warn you if a scout is closing right? That isn't in the game for gameplay reasons. A ton of things that WOULD help you and dramatically change the meta have no UI equivalents at all, and that's fine. It's just strange that:

> Guy within optical range at 12km glows like the sun

> Enemy scout, easily detectable by sensors, is closing distance rapidly

Have no such UI warnings but:

> Enemy strike fighter is thinking about shooting a missile

Creates a disturbance in the force detectable at 11km.