Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 09:00:00 -
[1]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/12/2010 09:05:49 Ok, 1st some back story for those of you out there not following this story for the past 3 years.
Everyone knows that part of why CCP hasn't really seriously looked into blasters is because they WANT them to be close range high dps weapons. But they also know they aren't working as well since the web and speed nerfs of the past. But, CCP has gone on record saying if they increase range it will no longer be a "get in their face" weapon, and if they increase damage they don't want to make a situation where it is too overpowered they feel the need to actually reduce tracking, thus making it useless again. If they increase tracking or falloff too much and reduce damage now it's an autocannon that needs cap. So what to do?
I thinkm that after talking about with my eve friend circle, I have found a good proposal to change blasters completely without them spilling over and fulfilling the role of an other weapon type. So it keeps blasters fresh and with a role no other weapons can fill, as it is today, without gimping the weapon just to get it into the role of "IN YOUR FACE" or no dps.
Blasters as supercharged energy release
1st the rp. Blaster work on the idea that you can get more damage out of a hybrid shell by super charging the energy and releasing it violently. This technique however severely reduces effective range. However the reason for this is the energy in a super charged state dissipates quickly.
However, the larger the target your shooting at, the farther away you can hit them with the full force of the weapon. Like a shotgun!
Blasters as shotguns Ok now the technicals behind this approach.
Blaster would have more damage with a slower rate of fire. 10% slower rof 40% more base damage.
However this damage is based on range. Blasters would be unaffected by optimal+falloff when checking hit% (instead being used to calculate decay), instead relying 100% on chance/tracking. Sig radius and range then, would instead be used to equate damage dealt. So in the old system if you had a 50% chance to hit you would miss or hit. Now you'll deal about 50% of your total damage per shot.
But it's not that simple!
Sigradius and range would be the calculated at an exponential rate to find the sigradius of the weapon at point of contact (which would be calculated at point of release, not contact). Rate of exponential decay would be based on range modifiers. At close range the weapons sigradius would be considered at base, and be small enough to hit a frigate for full damage. To simplify the equation here we'll deal with 3,000m optimal range and 4,000 falloff. At 5km it increases. 1st in row is range, 2nd in row is the blasters sigradius at that range, 3rd is rate of decay, 4th is damage output on frig sized target.
Small blaster 5,000m Optimal range / 5,000m falloff / 31 sigradius /shooting at a small frigate, 35 sigradius in size 0-3000m //////////////31 sig //////////// 0 decay rate (optimal) ///////////////////// 35/31= //////////// 100% of total damage taken 3,000m-7km/////////// 45.5 sig ////////// 0.5 decay rate (fallout) /////////////////// 35/45.5 ///////// 76.92% 7km-11km /////////////76.5 sig ////////// 1.0 decay rate (fallout2) ////////////////// 35/76.5 ///////// 45.75% 11km-15km ////////////122 sig /////////// 1.5 decay rate exponential at this point*/// 35/122 ////////// 28.68% 15km-19km ////////////199.5 sig ///////// 2.5 decay rate ///////////////////////////// 35/199.5 //////// 17.54% 19km-23km ///////////339 sig /////////// 4.5 decay rate////////////////////////////// 35/339 ///////// 10.32%
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 09:03:00 -
[2]
more to come. plus if anyone knows how to make a table show up right that would be most helpful.
|
Black Dranzer
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 10:06:00 -
[3]
I won't lie, some of the math is a bit hard to follow; You may want to go over your post and simplify it or you won't get a lot of support. Also, try to stay away from exact numbers and instead talk about basic concepts. I think CCP's designers get jealous when people try to do their jobs for them.
That said.. the idea of blasters being "shotguns" that have their damage instead of their accuracy reduced by range is actually a really neat idea. It even fits the name. "Blasters".
Supported!
|Bounty Fix|Mining Makeover| |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 10:12:00 -
[4]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/12/2010 10:14:30
Originally by: Black Dranzer I won't lie, some of the math is a bit hard to follow; You may want to go over your post and simplify it or you won't get a lot of support. Also, try to stay away from exact numbers and instead talk about basic concepts. I think CCP's designers get jealous when people try to do their jobs for them.
That said.. the idea of blasters being "shotguns" that have their damage instead of their accuracy reduced by range is actually a really neat idea. It even fits the name. "Blasters".
Supported!
heheh, I'm a terrible writer, but a great concept guy/artist. thanks for your positive feedback. I wish I could get the math across and make it simple to understand. Maybe someone would be willing to help me out? *if only tarminic was around*
edit: I like how you got it all in one sentence.
Quote:
the idea of blasters being "shotguns" that have their damage instead of their accuracy reduced by range
:P I got finals to do, I'll edit it tomorrow.
thanks for your feedback!
|
Nischara
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 12:12:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Nischara on 14/12/2010 12:14:49 support anything that will make ccp take a look at blasters
but if i understand you, you didnt do anything here, just changed the numbers a bit
your idea: dmg is directly dependant on range ans sig. current starus: when shooting in fallof you sometimes miss reducing your damage over time. on your example, a blaster with 5k+5k range misses 50% of the time at 10km, so that means it does 50% it's total damage... your calculation is exactly the same, only it never misses, but does 50% less dmg each shot. so you didnt change anything and since you made the "decay rate" exponential, using smaller guns against bigger targets dosent realy give you longer range
also under current mechanics the sig radius determines the damage output, not directly like you suggests but target sig radius influences the chances of wrecking shots, perfect hits, and light hits or barely hits (whatever the name), and by changing chances you change dmg output over time
so actualy i dont see what change you propose, that cant be done using current mechanics, just by playing around and tweaking the numbers
so my summary: pros: blasters make more RP sence cons: a lot of programing required by ccp, by making a third weapon math system, and no game change at the end
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 13:20:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nischara
smart stuff
Ok, I know I'm really bad at explaining. :P with current weapons, sig radius is like a multiplier for radians per second. ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)
Baiscly I want to take (Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius) and have that be fore damage instead. But the blasters Signature Resolution is based on range.
Quote: and since you made the "decay rate" exponential, using smaller guns against bigger targets doesn't really give you longer range
A small blaster has a total range, including falloffx2, of about 13km. with the decay rate I used, it takes up to about 23k range your small blaster will still do full damage to a large target.
Quote: on your example, a blaster with 5k+5k range misses 50% of the time at 10km, so that means it does 50% it's total damage... your calculation is exactly the same, only it never misses, but does 50% less dmg each shot. so you didnt change anything
your 100% right. However the issue with blaster come when your IN optimal range. or outside of x1 falloff.
When in perfect optimal range blaster boats have a hard time hitting the target. it's not 100% dps. it's based on the calculation I posted above. the closer you are the more the sig radius effects radians per second. I might not be 100% right on this, but my idea is to make blaster boats that catch a target and can close to 3000m, full damage potential, 100% of the time. your right it's not very different.
Maybe the iidea should be more to really push the optimal range in. it's about being able to deal more damage with blasters than current, but only if you can get close enough that your whole shell hits. Currently there is always a 50% chance built in to miss, making blaster seperate form this, and making them the one system based on just getting to your target based on his size I think would be neat.
but your right my idea might be a lot more RP, and makes more sense than function, I'm really tired to think right now ;P I swear I'm missing something :P
but as far as hitting at longer ranges, my change does work. It's basically like saying the weapons optimal range changes based on the size of the target. that at least, is what I was going for in a nutshell.
|
Shiho Weitong
Koa Mai Hoku
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 14:52:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Shiho Weitong on 14/12/2010 14:51:59 Ed: Click support
Heh, this reminds me of a similar idea I had a while back.
Supported. ----------- Why is it called common sense, when it's clearly very rare.
I had a mind once, but alas, I seem to have forgotten where I left it.
Originally by: Tchell Dahhn You win, and thank you. |
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 16:47:00 -
[8]
|
Ogogov
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 17:45:00 -
[9]
This is a good idea.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 18:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: MotherMoon ...my idea is to make blaster boats that catch a target and can close to 3000m, full damage potential, 100% of the time.
If this is all you want to do, just give blasters a massive tracking boost (or, equivalently, a sig res boost). Far simpler. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
|
ARES 003
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 19:45:00 -
[11]
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 20:26:00 -
[12]
Edited by: King Rothgar on 14/12/2010 20:26:35 Love the idea but not too sure on the ranges. But that is something to be deterimined on SISI I think. The overall concept is perfect. Space cannon grapeshot is win.
Edit: Forgot to support.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
LordElfa
Revan's Fist
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 20:43:00 -
[13]
I don't get the math but I get the concept.
|
fukier
The Unpodable Supermen
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 04:29:00 -
[14]
dude! awesome idea... now blasters are like the plasma torps from original Star Trek episode "Balance of Terror"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ewbas4_o70 Example of Plasma blast effect... notice how the damage dissipates with range...
Though Gallente still need to be boosted (getting close is still hard when your ship is heavy as sh&t and slow as my name.... Here is a link to a threat i started in fid that has some simular ideas...
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1424543 attero benevolentia! caveo cavi cautum censura! Remember Your Hell Is Someone Else's Heaven
|
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 12:10:00 -
[15]
I really like the concept, primarily because while it doesn't increase raw dps, it increases the usability of blasters. I also think it would give blasters (and hopefully similarly fixed railguns) a real niche to work in as hybrids would become the only turret system that doesn't miss (or at least not very much).
It makes sense for the type of gun it is, and it makes sense for gameplay. Supported.
Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
|
Axon Atom
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 12:29:00 -
[16]
Quote: Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
I think the idea is it removes sigradius and chance from the tracking equation.
So if your tracking is 30 radians per second, and they are moving faster than that, you will miss.
If they are moving sower than that, then you hit 100% of the time. So instead of a % chance to hit, it's either hit or miss. Which is kinda awesome.
supported.
|
Ogogov
Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 15:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Axon Atom
Quote: Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
I think the idea is it removes sigradius and chance from the tracking equation.
So if your tracking is 30 radians per second, and they are moving faster than that, you will miss.
If they are moving sower than that, then you hit 100% of the time. So instead of a % chance to hit, it's either hit or miss. Which is kinda awesome.
supported.
Another way of looking at it would be a directional smartbomb.
After all, if you let off a blunderbuss or a shotgun, it doesn't matter how fast something is moving, it's still going to get swiss-cheesed if it flies through the general arc of effect. So no, either hitting or missing and removing the hit chance from the equation would not be a good idea.
The problem with this approach is that large blasters would be devastatingly effective point defense guns all of a sudden, which would lead to Gallente ships being suicide to attack in frigates and cruisers.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:33:00 -
[18]
You have my shotgun.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:42:00 -
[19]
Please gimmie a reason to train Blasters.
-- I can not decide on a sig yet.
Under Construction.
|
Mica Swanhaven
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 18:54:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Mica Swanhaven on 15/12/2010 18:57:16
Originally by: Ogogov
Originally by: Axon Atom
Quote: Btw, my only possible concern about it is that it makes motion prediction seemingly obsolete for blasters unless I'm missing something, but then again that's not really a downside so much as it would simply be part of the new mechanics. ;)
I think the idea is it removes sigradius and chance from the tracking equation.
So if your tracking is 30 radians per second, and they are moving faster than that, you will miss.
If they are moving sower than that, then you hit 100% of the time. So instead of a % chance to hit, it's either hit or miss. Which is kinda awesome.
supported.
Another way of looking at it would be a directional smartbomb.
The problem with this approach is that large blasters would be devastatingly effective point defense guns all of a sudden, which would lead to Gallente ships being suicide to attack in frigates and cruisers.
just commenting on this part of your post. Your forgetting that the weapons start at their base sig resolution.
so a battleship could never hit a frigate for more than 10% of max damage. And it would also have to able to track you. the closer you are, the faster your transversal is.
And your forgetting that small blasters would be able to hit a battleship outside of web range. and the farther away you are, the less damage you take.
So the numbers should be balanced to make it so a frigate webbing a battleship at 10km would take 5-10% of the battleships guns, but only if the frigate is moving under the battleships tracking.
I would trust CCP to actually balance the math right, but I think the idea is that small ships could avoid most of the large weapons fire, even if they were sitting still.
edit:also maybe a tracking disruptors could be made to have a greater effect on just blasters?
|
|
GIGAR
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 19:15:00 -
[21]
Heck yea, that would be awesome :D (Sniper Shotgun Rokh... Do want!)
------------ "I've yet to meet one that can outsmart bullet." - Heavy Weapons Guy |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 19:17:00 -
[22]
so basically you sacrifice ability to do great damage against small targets that aren't moving much (traverse matched or strong webbed), but gain ability to do better damage to large targets outside 10km?
Seems like blaster frigs would benefit most, blaster cruisers possibly a little better off, and blaster battleships get totally shafted.
Either way, it's hard to anticipate full impact of such game changing ideas without seeing working prototype on SiSi. There are just too many variables that with some tweaking produce significantly different results.
Also, I don't believe this is the type of idea on which CCP cares to act. The changes are too radical. Tho they have been known to do radical ideas that come from their own people - The Great Nano Nerf. But I never seen any significant player ideas get implemented. We have to settle for minor tweaks or something completely new that doesn't replace core parts of the game.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 20:04:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 15/12/2010 20:08:24 I like your idea, but I dont think CCP will go for it. Why? This might give blasters an absolute DPS chance vs. frigates. This is a HUGE advantage. Even if it is only 10%, 10% of a 5000k volley is 500 damage vs. a frig who's eHP is around 5000 at best. Cruisers and Battleships will tear frigates to shreds. Ideally, the mechanics of the game would stay the same, but rather evolve Blasters more into artillery. Blasters become a really high-volley, low ROF, weapon for the short range zone. This'd give blasters atleast some advantage as they can fire off their whole damage before popping (due to the other inherent fallacies of Gallente ship design principles post speed nerf). Fixing the ships is needed either way.
Sidebar: Sooo, a while back before they fixed the 0% chance to hit at 0km, I did a bunch of math on how the tracking formula works. I found that CCP did an excellent job with their current formula because it perfectly encapsulates to hit % and DPS vs. range. That said, I was rather dismayed by the exponentials and the lumping together of to-hit calculations, tracking, and falloff, primarily because it unnecessarily complicates things for players. Theoretically, you should ALWAYS hit with a weapon should your tracking beat their transverse velocity. Period. End of story. However that is not how the current system works...
The entirety of the tracking formula is used only to calculate the To-Hit boundary. Transversal, Range, Turret speed, signatures, falloff and optimal are all lumped into the chance calculation. A random number is then generated, and if it is in the to-hit range, the actual damage is determined by a simple addition and multiply: IF: (Randnum < chance) THEN: DMG = (randnum + .5) * turret multiple * ammo dmg) Coincidentally, this is precisely why CCP likes weapon grouping: the damage formula is simple while tracking is painful and complex. Performing the calculation once for 8 turrets is a huge time saver.
If your idea is to be implemented, you'd be moving a large portion of the calculation away from the To-Hit chance portion, and adding more math to the DMG calculation. Personally, Id enjoy this. Basing to-hit on the falloff etc is really dumb. If you beat tracking, you should ALWAYS hit, but this is not how CCP sees it and nor is how it is calculated. Then again while the average DPS mathematically comes out the same either way; just pray you are lucky.
------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Linna Excel
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 20:45:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Linna Excel on 15/12/2010 20:44:50 If I've followed you right -make damage more dependent on size of the ship you are trying to hit
I think that would work out okay, but they still have problems with both fitting and cap issues.
|
Thyme Waster
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:24:00 -
[25]
This is such an awesome idea.
|
Elana Dyson
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:26:00 -
[26]
Genius.
Please CCP, make blasters good!
|
Doctero
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:29:00 -
[27]
Gallente have been nerfed to uselessness already by having to rely on drones (which NEVER worked right) and blasters being utterly fail, making cross-training to Amarr or the Minnies inevitable.
It's about time they got fixed. Give people a reason to cross-train Gallente for once!
|
Professor Bunsen
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:31:00 -
[28]
Supported. |
Ryan Starwing
Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:34:00 -
[29]
This with a slight buff to tracking and a medium net buff to dps (enough alpha to overcome slower rate of fire and still do more dps) Will help blasters alot. Also lowering fitting requirments will help. This also makes sence; why would a frigate miss a titan 10-20km away.
|
The Darkkness
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 21:37:00 -
[30]
Best thing about this proposal is that it preserves the idea of blasters, while keeping them unique and distinct from the other weapon systems.
Yes, it will require intensive testing, but for the love of EVE, it's worth it.
Supported!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |