Missiles: Do they ever miss???

[Phoenix-D]

Err, why not?

Captial Missile = seeker.

Phoenix-D

[Possum]

quote:

---

Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Seekers always hit. It has been that way forever (SE3 at least).

the % shown in tactical over the weapon pic is the chance your aim is true. With a seeker, it will correct as it flies, therefore hitting.

The only time a seeker will not do damage is:
-the enemy ship moves out of range of the seeker.
-PD shoots it down.
-the seeker has a "shields only" warhead, and there are no shields left.

---

Oh, oh, oh, I know this is pedantic of me, but I'm going to add another instance...

-the seeker is an Ionic Pulse Missile, which does damage to engines only, and the target has no engines left

[Aussie Gamer]

SLAP SLAP! Oh yer that's right!
That's what you said about seekers, stupid me!

Does that means if you have a minus of 10% per square, you actually increase the range by putting in a combat sensor of say 25%?

I thought that it was to increase the chance to hit? If you always hit with seekers then why put a combat sensor on board???

This looks like a bug to me!

[Phoenix-D]

Combat sensors, talismans and the like only affect direct-fire weaponry. So if you are making a missile ship, leave off the combat sensors.

As for the percentages:

They are somewhat accurate. Think of it this way: at max range you have a 1% chance to hit. This is because all your target has to do is move backwards *one square* and your missiles will expend themselves harmless (effectively a miss). Almost any ship can move one square, so you have the 1%. Closer, it becomes less likely that your target would be able to move out of range, hence the higher to-hit.

Besides, it wouldn't be fair on seekers if they could miss. After all, direct-fire weapons can't be outranged by backing up- if they fire, they miss or hit instantly, no manuvering dodging. And direct fire weapons cannot be shot down.

If they could miss, seekers would have to go through this sequence to kill a ship:
Outranged, shot down, miss, shields, armor, internals

Where direct-fires would have to go through this:
Miss, shields, armor, internals

See the problem?

Phoenix-D

[capnq]

quote:

---

For example, a missle with range 10 (CSM II, I believe has that range) is launched at a target eight squares away. The target moves three squares away (might work at two as well, never really sat and tested it), and stays there. The missile will appear to go right over the ship, and just disappear, without the explosion, no damage done. Move one more out of range and the missile disappears just before the target.

---

You're right; this is the behavior I was misinterpreting as a miss.


------------------
Cap'n Q

[Suicide Junkie]

When the missile moves into its target which is 1 square out of range, the missile does 0 damage.

This is different from the missile not doing damage.

If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields.

[nerfman]

"If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields."

Ouch, that is a little buggy, but understandable based on the other threads that address armor and damage in general. I always wondered why individual component damage wasn't tracked. It takes less memory to do it the current way (by assigning a pointer to the Last component damaged and recording the partial damage independent of the actual componenet), but sure does lead to some wierd game effects.

Personally, I think that missiles should have a % to hit (or miss). There should be components that give a negative percetage (like ECM), jammers if you will. The seeker itself would be rated by a percentage that reflects how good a terminal manuever and how hardened vs soft kill (jamming) the seeker is. All these things go into a modern missile engagement and could reasonably be modeled here (if missiles actually had to hit %'s).

As far as it not being "fair" to missile shooters, there are work arounds, namely increased salvo size. Ideally, if two forces were at roughly the same tech then the missiles would have say a 80% (or maybe higher) chance to hit each way. But if one team had much better jamming/ECM, then they would benefit from getting many more soft kills (missiles that miss due to jamming). I find it odd that electronic warfare in this game effects direct fire but not guided munitions when in real life the opposite is generally true. Bullets can't be jammed and ship mounted sensors are more powerful/agile/and backed by more powerful computers. They can be jammed, but jamming a tiny little missile seeker that is very close to you is a lot easier than jamming a whole ships sensor system when it is most likely much farther away.