i've heard this mentioned in other threads, but i don't think it has ever been concidered outside the context of other issues.

personaly i think missiles should be dstroyable, simply because it makes sence from a physics standpoint that they could be destroyed.

my main concern is as to why they aren't destroyable now. after all there must ahve been a reason (even it it is just that giving the missile objucts the atributes theyu neede to be destroied was concidered too much work).

so, i pose these questiones, to the player base:

1. should missiles be destroyable?
2. how hard should they be to destroy? will it require special weapons just to be able to hit the missile? how many hp should missiles have?
3. how would missiles being destroyable affect game balance?
4. should rockets be destroyable also?

and i pose these questiones to the devs:

1. how dificult would it actualy be to make missiles destroyable?
2. is there curently a plan to implement this?

I thought that destroy-able missiles would add a lot to the game, especially because skilled fighters could intercept missiles, making it more viable to increase their accuracy and speed, making them a good weapon again. presently ramming is basically the only way to use missiles. because people can simply outrun them if you give them too much time, or dodge them easily if they have any kind of warning.

While I agree that it should be possible to destroy missiles, to say that the only way they are effective now is to ram with them is overstating the problem. Gems in particular are quite effective, particularly if fired at an oncoming target from 650m away. Yes, they can be dodged by some, but they do hit as often as not.

i think most of us agree that they should be destroyable, my main intent was to get some more specific feedback.

For exapmle i think that it should take about 1000 hp before an average missile is destroied, and that a destroied missile should have a very small explosion (because a large one could make swarms, and general mass missile tacktics usless)

i also think that this should aply eqyaly to rockets and missiles.

/me invites FM to fire gems at him.

Missiles are an annoyance right now (maybe they should be though, afterall, they require no skill to use)

They are more about getting your target moving, than getting a kill.

[Edit]
If you rely on auto aim/missiles well then there is no hope for you. =p

This is more necessary than one might think. All the IA seems to do now is bring 4-5 swarm boats and keep launching at the cap ship, jump out, back in repeat... I would get bored, but they seem pretty happy with it.

*cough* *cough

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9080

And the ability to shoot down missiles (with difficulty) would be enough countermeasure, I think, because missile battles would be at greater range anyway.

Or, if they make missles capable of being shot down, they could readd that uber targeting algorithm for them :P

I don't think any specifics can really be discussed without it being implemented.
We could throw numbers around for months and it wont mean anything until we have to actually deal with them in game.

That said...
a general decision would have to be made regarding tactics.
Should destroying a missile be the only way to avoid damage? or would running also be a viable option?
If you want both running, and destroying missiles to be a good tactic then they would have to be balanced to make neither option noticeably better, and that sounds like it would be quite a lot of work.

Missles would only be destroyable, effectively, with certain weapons. For example, a gauss would not be too effective at destroying swarms, so the pilot would have to run/turbo away. On the other hand, a flak cannon would laugh at missles of all kinds, but it costs you a slot. it would be a trade off.

In the game Crimson Skies for PC, there are all of these zeps or zepplins. The only problem is you have to knock out all of their gas bags to down them. The only option is to fir what was called an arriel torpedo. These torpedos moved about 300m on fuel then the would arm and fly very slowly towards the zepplin. Many people would launch them from a great distance but the problem was..... THEY COULD BE SHOT DOWN!
With a normal burst of fire, these torpedos, thes warheads could be blown up protecting the zepplin

yes.. if we ever see the Avalon return, or a comparable anti-capital missile, it should be able to be intercepted by a fighter.. I don't think invincible anti-fighter missiles are as much a problem

If anyone here remembers Freespace 2, that game had *very* dangerous anti-capital warheads that could down a smaller frigate very quickly.. One of the most important fighter roles became bomb-and-bomber intercept, which was a lot of fun..