Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 13:22:03 -
[1] - Quote
Link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ua0M35OPrB4FNDa58aWBpZzn9wMoVeLHdOU1oJcgbnQ/edit?usp=sharing
Link to original Reddit thread with discussions: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/32l9ob/better_balance_through_penetration_and_tracking/
But Quesa, why is it a Google Docs? Because it's easier.
Why is the document so long? Yeah, the document is 7 pages in length but the meat of the proposal is just the first two pages. The other pages are examples, discussions about possible advantages as well as a section devoted to responding to criticisms/concerns about the changes. In fact, the last 3 pages of the document are those criticisms/concerns and my responses. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7879
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 13:57:32 -
[2] - Quote
Sorry but... post the meat of your proposal here rather than just expect people to jump through links.
This is just as bad as people linking others to their blogs because they can't be asked to post on the forums.
How did you start?
The SP System
IFW
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 14:14:27 -
[3] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Sorry but... post the meat of your proposal here rather than just expect people to jump through links.
This is just as bad as people linking others to their blogs because they can't be asked to post on the forums. This isn't clickbait nor is it a blog, which is why I didn't use a URL shortener, it's a link to a google doc. Posting these types of things on forums is sometimes problematic because of formatting, character limits as well as posting limitations.
I'm not going to hassle people to click on it and read but, honestly, you would have saved you time by just clicking on the link vs replying to the thread. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1694
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 14:17:19 -
[4] - Quote
Quesa wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Sorry but... post the meat of your proposal here rather than just expect people to jump through links.
This is just as bad as people linking others to their blogs because they can't be asked to post on the forums. This isn't clickbait nor is it a blog, which is why I didn't use a URL shortener, it's a link to a google doc. Posting these types of things on forums is sometimes problematic because of formatting, character limits as well as posting limitations. I'm not going to hassle people to click on it and read but, honestly, you would have saved you time by just clicking on the link vs replying to the thread.
I can save a ****-load of time by just ignoring the whole damn proposition because I don't want to deal with external documents. You could at least post a TLDR version or generic idea of what it's supposed to be about instead of just throwing 2 damn links. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7879
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 14:32:02 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:This isn't clickbait nor is it a blog, which is why I didn't use a URL shortener, it's a link to a google doc. Posting these types of things on forums is sometimes problematic because of formatting, character limits as well as posting limitations.
I'm not going to hassle people to click on it and read but, honestly, you would have saved you time by just clicking on the link vs replying to the thread. I cannot understand reddit's formatting (seriously, it's terrible and chaotic). So Reddit is an automatic out.
And I cannot open Google Docs where I am at.
Not everyone can be in front of their own personal computer all the time. And not everyone visits or understands the same forums.
Post here with the ACTUAL idea if you want ACTUAL feedback... or don't post at all.
How did you start?
The SP System
IFW
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
338
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 14:46:01 -
[6] - Quote
My anxiety went up while trying to read the replies here and some parts of the document.
Pls halp
The proposal wants to add some sort of gimmicky "Penetration value" mechanic on top of what we already have.
At first I thought the document wanted to adjust the Signature Resolutions of each tier of weapons in a given type, i.e. Dual 425mm ACs at 200m, Dual 625mms with 250m sigres, and 800mm ACs unchanged at 400m.
See the link on my signature for the above.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Quintessen
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
498
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 14:47:40 -
[7] - Quote
I glanced over it some. An interesting idea, but it seems that it's covering the same ground that signature radius/signature resolution does along with hit points.
This would just make it that much more difficult for smaller ships to damage larger ships, which is already hard enough. One of the results of your proposal is that frigates wouldn't ever really be able to down a capital, which they have before and have been a mainstay of organizations like Brave.
I'd rather see something like this as a further differentiator between shield and armor fleets. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
338
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 14:53:38 -
[8] - Quote
The amount of new calculations done is arguable more than Tracking, and that would be on top of what we have now.
Server is dead.
No.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 15:23:16 -
[9] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:I glanced over it some. An interesting idea, but it seems that it's covering the same ground that signature radius/signature resolution does along with hit points.
This would just make it that much more difficult for smaller ships to damage larger ships, which is already hard enough. One of the results of your proposal is that frigates wouldn't ever really be able to down a capital, which they have before and have been a mainstay of organizations like Brave.
I'd rather see something like this as a further differentiator between shield and armor fleets. The tracking using sig and such wouldn't change, calculation wise. The example numbers were just to simplify the entire process so it was easier to follow without bringing in the entire tracking formula.
It would not only make it more difficult for something like a frigate to apply damage to a BS but would also make it more difficult for a BS to apply damage to a frigate.
A organization like Brave, with the numbers, would still be able to drop a capital with frigate, it would just take more or a bit longer. I don't necessarily see a problem with that, myself. Those larger ships should be more resilient against smaller, low caliber charges. The problem I have with the way things are now is that if you're in a smaller ship, your DPS application is almost always 100% of potential while that of the larger ship is dramatically reduced through the tracking formula. It just didn't make sense that you could effectively negate damage application of the larger ship while the smaller had no issues. It allows situations where you can run a large fleet of small, cheap ships and apply high damage to a fleet of much larger ships, which by all accounts should brush off a significant portion of the incoming damage from such small weapon systems. Think, an Assault Rifle on a Tank. And while I don't think injecting RL into a conversation about a game is the best way to further the discussion, it does help to illustrate. |
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 15:25:19 -
[10] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:The amount of new calculations done is arguable more than Tracking+Damage/resists calculation, and that would be on top of what we have now. Server is dead. No. Signature resolution reduction of the large-er weapons is the only remedy here in making large-er ships more competitive - http://www.hostile.dk/files/eve/eve-tracking101.swf The above is an old circa 2005 work, which still applies today, as the formulas haven't changed. I have no doubts that the server could handle a slight addition to the tracking formula if the penetration/layering values weren't modified by multiple modules or skills. You could apply these un-modifiable values to weapons and hulls as static numbers, thus reduce any additional load to minimal or unnoticeable levels. |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
338
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 15:33:01 -
[11] - Quote
Why now?
The system has worked flawlessly for 12 years without a change. If you want to make larger ships more competitive, decrease certain turrets' Signature resolutions, which practically had been done in the case of Rapid Light/Heavy Missiles launchers.
Under your proposal, small Tech 1 ship vs. large Tech 2 hull would be like Tech 1 vs Tech 5. Do not want.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
533
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:05:05 -
[12] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Quesa wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Sorry but... post the meat of your proposal here rather than just expect people to jump through links.
This is just as bad as people linking others to their blogs because they can't be asked to post on the forums. This isn't clickbait nor is it a blog, which is why I didn't use a URL shortener, it's a link to a google doc. Posting these types of things on forums is sometimes problematic because of formatting, character limits as well as posting limitations. I'm not going to hassle people to click on it and read but, honestly, you would have saved you time by just clicking on the link vs replying to the thread. I can save a ****-load of time by just ignoring the whole damn proposition because I don't want to deal with external documents. You could at least post a TLDR version or generic idea of what it's supposed to be about instead of just throwing 2 damn links.
This. so much this. I am guilty of using a couple of big frickin google docs in the one fairly major thread I've run, but the concept level stuff was included in the that thread.
I hope you don't mind me using this as an example of what NOT to do as far as starting a thread in F&I that you want taken seriously.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1126
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:12:44 -
[13] - Quote
not reading all that, but sounds like you want it too replace wrecking shots? .. only advantage is it would apply too missiles aswell as turrets..
you can't just flop out a virtually complete thread and expect people too read it, give us a TLDR and interact with us too get your idea across, got better things too do than read a 7 page document..
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:14:45 -
[14] - Quote
James Baboli wrote: I am guilty of using a couple of big frickin google docs in the one fairly major thread I've run, but the concept level stuff was included in the that thread.
I hope you don't mind me using this as an example of what NOT to do as far as starting a thread in F&I that you want taken seriously. I don't mind at all, I just disagree. I have found that people genuinly interested in viewing/commented on ideas don't mind using an external document. It's easier for me, in many ways. Including the ones mentioned, if I need to make modifications to the idea I have a single place to do so and it's updated for everyone.
I've done the whole, post ideas on multiple forums and then combine them later thing but for some ideas, this is just easier and keeps things centralized instead of the same ideas being discussed in different places at the same time. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
339
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:14:49 -
[15] - Quote
No.
He wants to do a system which checks weapon size against target size, so i.e. Small Energy Pulses won't do 100% of their damage to a Battleship or a Battlecruiser.
So small Tech 1 ships vs. large Tech 1 ships becomes T1 vs T2 in effect, while Tech 1 vs Tech 2 is going to be like fighting Tech 5 after resists.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:16:37 -
[16] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:not reading all that, but sounds like you want it too replace wrecking shots? .. only advantage is it would apply too missiles aswell as turrets..
you can't just flop out a virtually complete thread and expect people too read it, give us a TLDR and interact with us too get your idea across, got better things too do than read a 7 page document.. Not trying to be a stickler but it doesn't seem that you even read the original post where it said the meat of the idea is in the first two pages. You don't need to read all 7. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
339
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:19:47 -
[17] - Quote
Man, formulating one sentence outlining the proposal and then copy-pasting your numbers from the docs would go a long way here.
If you're spamming this on all available forums, then you're failing horribly, because this particular forum and this section is where you need to have specifics ready and available in the first poast.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:40:02 -
[18] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Man, formulating one sentence outlining the proposal and then copy-pasting your numbers from the docs would go a long way here. If you're spamming this on all available forums, then you're failing horribly, because this particular forum and this section is where you need to have specifics ready and available in the first poast. Actually, I don't like using the EO forums for anything other than getting information from the Tech lab or the character bazaar as I have always found that you get far better feedback from places like Kugu or Reddit than you can from here.
That's not saying I don't get some good feedback from the EO forums but that there are too many people on these forums who's sole purpose isn't constructive criticism, regardless of how I present something. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
339
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:46:28 -
[19] - Quote
There are two points in your first post about why the Document is too long and why you're using Googledocs, but nothing about the proposal, and five posts by other people discussing this very fact.
Should we consider this a spam thread since you're not even looking to get feedback on your specifics?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5328
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 16:49:41 -
[20] - Quote
Quote:Forum rules23. Post constructively.Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
Tl;dr closed for lack of content.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |