Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
it's pretty terrible in the current balance, but given it's a guided weapon, it's much harder to balance than regular weapons
I don't see it impossible for guided missiles to work with that kind of technologies when mad scientists can make robot soldiers and robot squids either
no need for electronic chips for that sort of work
I noticed in the Beta where the guided missile is cheaper in the campaign than it is in the designer. I think the price in the campaign is much more reasonable, while still keeping it inferior to unguided weapons.
It's HUGE, and takes up a lot of space, BUT it does point upwards, which offers the opportunity to add more firepower onto a build that has already taken up all the forward facing space that you're willing to use. I think this is the major selling point, for putting a weapon on your ship that has inferior DPS than all other explosives. Although rockets do get negated by heavy armor, and guided missiles don't.
So, it's not as 1-dimensional of a "balance" going on here as it may seem at first.