More of a question than a suggestion. Perhaps there is a real military correlation for which I am ignorant as I have limited knowledge of things military. Or perhaps it was put in because of abuse or to balance them. Just doesn't make sense to me that this is the only weapon type that you are warned against.

Well, it's the only weapon type that actively tracks you. Flying into a crazy combat situation, like a cap battle, you can just fly a little randomly to avoid most incoming fire. Not so with some of the seeking missiles. So we thought that warranted an extra warning. Plus, the proximity/frequency thing kind of heightened the "intensity" feeling.

Without the warning there were that many more frustrating situations of people just "exploding" and not knowing why. That didn't seem like a good thing.

From a technical standpoint, it's one of the only weapons where a warning is easily feasible. Doing a similar warning with energy fire from a capship turret would require a lot of complex trajectory/collision analysis, which would be CPU intensive and likely change from moment to moment. With a seeking missile it's a relatively trivial piece of added information to send across the network, and only once.

/me seconds incarnate.

I spend rather a lot more time than I'd like dodging seekers. The beep beep is spot on and possibly the most perfect element so far introduced to the game.

I agree with Impavid. I feel blind fighting missiles with my sound turned off.

As for a real military reason, there is one. Missiles "lock" (in real life) via active radar signals (and torpedoes use active sonar). It's hard not to notice the extra signals bouncing off the airplane or ship if you have any sense about you.

on the topic of warning systems I think mines need to be a different color then flares on the radar it has always annoyed me when I think im dodging a flare just to find out it is a mine and I either set it off on accident or go way out of my way to avoid it for no good reason.