|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 13:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
The removal of ewar immunity idea is very interesting. My immediate feeling was that it might be overly drastic, but the more I think about it the more I like it. Coordination of ewar in large fleets is always a challenge, but it's a challenge that others have solved in the past.
PL's original ahac fleets used distributed ewar (usually damps or ecm) on unbonused zealots to good effect. You can't get perfect distribution but you can get good coverage through sheer numbers of ewar mods in play. A small squad of arbitrators or sentinels in their own ingame channel or mumble sub-channel to coordinate would work really well, as would just sticking one TD on each drake in a 250 man drake fleet and telling people to pick a titan with a letter close to their name.
Ewar generally works really well against (relatively) smaller groups of large ships, which describes supercap heavy fleets well.
The end result may be that the titans guns become practically useless against a well prepared fleet, but since the fleet is sacrificing a midslot and working at coordination I think that is a fine result.
The more I think about the ewar idea the more I look forward to dealing with the change from both sides of the coin. Flying alongside titans using subcap fleets that are designed to face mass TDs seems interesting, and the challenge of coordinating TDs against masses of opposing titans also seems like a fun problem to solve. "This creates problems that are fun to solve" is about the highest praise I can give a balance change imo. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 13:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc.
The issue here is that sig radius already effects combat too weakly. If you don't give any incentives to reduce it then you lose a lot of the advantages of ABs, armor tanks, and minmatar gang bonuses.
The end result would be to remove the number of choices that are worth making in fleet combat. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 13:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
pmchem wrote:Raivi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc.
The issue here is that sig radius already effects combat too weakly. If you don't give any incentives to reduce it then you lose a lot of the advantages of ABs, armor tanks, and minmatar gang bonuses. The end result would be to remove the number of choices that are worth making in fleet combat. The end result is having titans that can't significantly damage subcaps, while still being able to target them for usage of modules or broadcasts. I assume these changes would be XL turret specific, so all those sigrad effects you talk about would still be important for subcap v subcap and subcap v carrier/supercarrier gameplay. I don't see the problem. The idea is that titans would need support fleets to operate, so sigrad choices will still be important.
It's removing the sig radius choices from one of the only areas where they matter. Removing ewar immunity would allow newbies to completely lock down even numbered titan fleets while also making their job even easier if they take advantage of the sig radius lowering effects available in game. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:we can't have the counter to titans require you to be one of the top n FCs on the server (where n is a small number). Reducing the co-ordination load on FCs is something we should probably address in the long run, but it's not happening right now obviously.
Damp on every ship distributed to hostile logistics was something Atlas was able to pull off. Just saying. (Your point is completely valid but I couldn't resist a dig at Atlas)
Also like you said if you miss one or two titans you're still left in the same non-overpowered situation of subcap fleet vs one or two titans. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Also, longshot I know, but would there be a way to do the base sigres thing without having it effect dreads? :prettyplease: |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lord Helghast wrote:Seems silly but the problem isn't really titans
the problems is mass amounts of titans in 1 system
so why don't you just do the right thing CCP and FIX CAP MOVEMENT!
Simple enough change, add a spool up to cynos, that increases the Mass allowance the longer it runs, so to get a titan through it will tkae 1-2 minutes to build up to size.... and gives the enemy a chance to defend against the quickly growing cyno that a titans about to enter through...
it was even suggested previously to tie the cyno gen to heavy cap usage... so to generate a small cyno you could use a frigate (small cynogen = small cap usage but also very low maximum mass... large = large cap draw, and no limit to cyno mass size....)
this makes it so to get a titan in you need a battleship with support and fit for cap and tank.
want to bring in 30 titans, its possible but your gonna have to bring 30 cyno fit + capacitor fit battleships, with support to defend them while there cynos build up to get each of there titans through.....
Wouldn't this do a lot to discourage the proliferation of titans and supers en-mass on single battlefield?
Recons would be able to fit large sized cyno generators, that way hot drops of non-capital sized fleets would still be possible, as they could activate and generate a large mass field quickly to get say a gang of bombers/recons etc through and get the field down again
Would cause the same problem of overpowered defense that cynojammer AOE titans caused back in the day. Tweaking cap movement would be worth it on it's own though. My favourite idea is to give a DD-like cooldown after jumping that prevents jumping again (and maybe warping) for a few minutes. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'm actually cool with one arbitrator making a titan useless because the titan's support fleet should be able to shoot that arbitrator. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 20:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
gfldex wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.) Is that the working title or do you have to kill us now?
IIRC at fanfest they said Escalation is the name of the big patch that's coming BEFORE Inferno.
Could be wrong though. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 22:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Fair enough, shelving that idea for now, then. It's something we might revisit in some form when we get round to looking at EAFs, but that's out of scope here.
Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc. Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking. I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem. Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads. http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts. I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable. Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights. And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.
Right now he needs ideas for things that can be done before April 24th dude.
|
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 22:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Imagine if supercap ewar immunity was removed, flying this:
[Flycatcher, TD] Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Medium Shield Extender II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption [empty med slot]
Interdiction Sphere Launcher I, Warp Disrupt Probe Interdiction Sphere Launcher I, Warp Disrupt Probe [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Core Defence Field Extender I Small Core Defence Field Extender I
Has 3x the scan res of a triple sensor boosted Avatar, so relock any titans that yellow box you and profit. :lol: |
|
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 13:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
That would have the downside of homogeonizing everything towards missile-like mechanics, but that might not be the end of the world as it would solve the problem ov oversized guns once and for all. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Gripen wrote:It's quite surprising for me that you are trying to came up with some kind of special case for the supercapital guns here while exactly same problem exists in subcapital world as well manifesting itself with frigates being extinct from all 0.0 warfare formats.
Completely agree with this. Titans blap BCs too easily and Battleships blap Frigates too easily. It's more than just one ship class.
That being said a full rebalance of turret tracking against small targets is probably too much for Escalation, but I would love to see it in the near future. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 23:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Regarding all this formula-manipulation: I'm bad at mathematics, but please don't do anything that would affect subcap turrets and their uses. I see that you say in your post that your changes wouldn't really change anything for subcaps, which is good. What I wouldn't want is a scenario where, for example, I can no longer blap an interceptor that is MWDing at my battleship with zero transversal.
Basically, stay away from any changes to gun hit mechanics that straight up reduce damage applied by larger guns to smaller targets. Doing this would make it too easy to fly tacklers (by, for example, turning flying interceptors into "turn on MWD, approach target" rather than the current mechanics where you need to manually pilot to keep transversal up, etc).
This basically reads just like someone complaining about a titan nerf. Just replace BS with titans and interceptors with BCs.
I agree that at 0 transversal everything should die, but it's much too easy for BS to hit frigates right now. Same problem as how easily titans hit BS and BCs (but smaller scale).
If you want to fight off frigate tacklers, bring some antisupport like artycanes or HACs. BS being the be-all end-all of fleets isn't the way it needs to be. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
81
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
My thoughts on the latest proposal:
-Firstly, it's going to do the job much better than any of the previous official proposals, and do it without seriously nerfing the titan's anti-cap abilities, which is good.
-Ths use of unmodified sig radius isn't ideal since it doesn't take into account choices relating to sig radius like MWD use, shield extenders and skirmish bonuses. But it's an effective change you can make in the limited time available to you, so it'll do for now.
-The commitment to look at other options down the road is also good, just make sure to keep open the possability of rolling back some of the simple changes if you implement some of the more complicated ones. If every nerf on that "possible" list gets implemented at the same time you'll end up with titans that are too weak.
-The change to refitting while targetted is going to have a significant effect on current triage carrier doctrines. I would consider this to be undesirable collateral damage as triage carriers in my opinion are both fun and balanced at the moment. But it may be nessesary collateral damage, and if so then it's not the end of the world.
-Once you have nerfed in combat refitting could you look at removing the mechanic that prevents refitting with a lot of other carriers around you? There shouldn't be anymore balance considerations and that message is annoying as hell when you just want to refit your carriers at a safespot.
-It seems this chance is also going to apply to dreads, which makes me sad and kills what could have been a fun emerging tactic. But if there's no easy way to avoid it then so be it. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 23:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lord Maldoror wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Criticisms?
I feel the general drive here is wrong, in that it makes Eve into a lower skill game. Right now the tracking formula is rather esoteric but it works. A move toward "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" reduces operational versatility on the field and encourages simply X countered by Y countered by Z. If you're in one-sized ship and you get jumped by different sig ships, you should be able to use your assets, armed with painters and webs, to kill those who have ambushed you. And, in turn, if jumping you with larger ships, they should have the same options to employ those to hit you. Whilst I'm sure that would still be possible after the proposed changes, "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" is a step against it,. Unmodified is a bad word in an open-world sandbox game. There should always be opportunity to modify variables to respond to a situation. Otherwise, we increasingly move to a rock, paper, scissors game with no fleet wanting to jump in first, lest the next fleet bring the perfect sig counter. A game like Eve does not stand still. As the game grows, so does the collective knowledge of the people who play it. In 2007, people would jump into camps they would never dream about now - it was a lot easier to find a fight. This is not because people lack courage now. It's simply because people have come to learn what it means when they see falcons at range, or a given number of logistics or the speed of a 100mn AB Tengu, or the firepower of a super-capital or whatever else. People have learnt what counters what. As a result, the mystery of a game, and the heart of the game, now lies in how people can adapt to given situations. The esoteric turret formula is a major part of that. If you see a bunch of battleships hitting a tower, you should never know - unless you ship scan them - whether they'll be able to hit your frigates or not. While on the subject, let me also say I'm concerned that the tracking formula is not seen within CCP as a monument of Eve and a pillar of their mechanics. I remember talking to Agent Xer0 and Lord Zap many times late at night after fleet, and listening to stories of m0o in the dawn of Eve back when I was still wasting my time on de_dust2. The introduction of tracking and sig had a monumental impact on the initial Wild West that they describe. You might even say that 'modern' Eve was born at that point. And whereas much mystery has been dispelled in the collective growth of Eve knowledge, tracking and sig have remained esoteric to many people. Note, for example, the continual 're-discovery' of these mechanics. Every so often (e.g. AHACS, Afs, rifters, etc. ) a lower sig class of ship becomes vogue, catches on and is finally countered en masse by painters and webs. Gradually those counters themselves fall out of vogue and history repeats itself. People should never have an answer to the question 'will they hit me?' before they take the fight. These last frontiers need to be enshrined and protected within the Eve code. The tracking formula and its relation to both speed and sig is one of Eve's finest technical accomplishments. Ultimately, I don't feel the statement GÇ£scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radiusGÇ¥ is congruent with the finest aspects of Eve's game design or a full analysis of its history.
This is a good post.
If you need to do the unmodified sig thing due to time constraints, please commit to beginning the process of iterating on titans (finding a better solution) on April 25th. Don't stick it at the bottom of the backlog to be done after the rest of the ships in eve have all been balanced. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 14:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Greyscale, if the new XL gun attribute works the way I expect it will, a titan will be doing about 15% damage to a maelstrom and 9% damage to a drake. I think that kills blapping completely.
Would you consider not changing the refitting in combat in Escalation since it seems less likely it will be needed to balance titans? The current uses of refitting have a fairly well established and well balanced place in eve tactics, and losing them would be a shame.
I propose leaving the refitting changes out of Escalation and implementing them in Incursion if you feel they're needed at that time. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 15:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Reposting my reply from the CSM forum here so everyone can see the discussion:
This sort of gameplay is emergent and cool and interesting and something we very much enjoy seeing players discover, but it also sits in a particular kind of design grey-area where it's not really something we want to be seeing (for reasons I'll describe in a second), but something that's benign enough that we're not actually going to take action to nerf it just because of that, but also nevertheless something that we're not going to explicitly exempt from larger changes if they happen to impact it.
The reason we don't really like this sort of thing is that pre-fight fitting decisions are supposed to be one of the fundamental decisions of EVE combat. Most MMOs let you change your weapons and armor more-or-less on the fly. We don't, and there are clear and long-standing design principles behind that. SMAs let you make that decision *closer* to the fight, but they're not there to let you change your fitting *in* the fight. Yes, we need more interesting decisions that players can make during combat, that's one of the fundamental problems with our combat model right now IMO, and yes, removing this option will take some interesting decisions out of combat, and that makes us sad.
That said, it is nevertheless the case that the design team here doesn't feel that explicitly supporting this kind of gameplay by exempting non-supercap ships from the restriction we want to take here is a direction we want to be taking the game in over the medium term. We would rather remove this particular option in the short-term to maintain the importance of pre-fight fitting, and then solve the larger problem of a lack of interesting decisions during combat in the medium term with mechanics that explicitly and properly support such decision-making in the full range of combat scenarios, rather than grandfathering in an exception to the general design intent to leave a small bandaid on a large wound.
We're still listening to the feedback here, obviously, but we feel we have a lot of reasons to be moving in this direction right now.
I think the concern many players will have with this is that CCP very rarely mentions that they want to increase the significance of player choice. It hasn't seemed like a priority in the past and we are afraid that it will be ignored in the future.
These kinds of "unintended" game mechanics make up the most interesting tactics in eve, and it seems to me that it's better to support that innovation (as long as said mechanics do not become overpowered) instead of discouraging it. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 21:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nobody bets their supercap in large fights on the ability to swap even today due to the "Too many ships within range" error.
Swapping fits is a very powerful trick for titans, but it rarely works in normal sized or larger fights. That's pretty much the definition of a bad mechanic (overpowered when it works once and a while) so I can see why CCP wants to get away from the status quo in that regard.
However the damage nerf against small targets removes the interest people will have in flying no-tank blap fits, making the swapping to tank trick obsolete for titans. I think combat refitting can safely be left in place for Escalation without continuing to be a titan-related problem. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
83
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 19:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:Quote:- Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted. Ben Booley and I talked this over and we have an alternate solution. Stop people from refitting their ships when they have an aggression timer. This will stop aggressive Titans and Dreads from refitting while still allowing bait / cyno / triage carriers not being aggressive to do so. Because everyone enjoys shooting a thing and then having to wait 15 minutes to refit their ship regardless of what's going on at the time. Sorry, good call. Meant a 60 second aggression timer, not the full 15 minute timer.
Problem with that idea is that once the crimewatch changes come into effect, repping someone with aggression will give you the 60 second aggro timer (this is a good change but it makes using aggro timers for refitting less helpful). |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
83
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
This is indeed a good thread. Welcome back Greyscale, hope you had a good break.
I'm really glad you're reconsidering the refitting in space change. This whole dialogue has been pretty excellent so far imo. |
|
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 15:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
pmchem wrote: 1. Stacked target painters from a huginn on a common battleship (one LSE, 3 shield rig maelstrom) raise its sig to ~1700, which is very close to the base sig res in your above numbers. This suggests the damage would hardly be scaled down at all. If you went with a linear or quadratic falloff (assuming dmg is 0 at sig = 0 and 100% dmg at 2000 sigrad).
If he uses a cutoff of closer to 2500, you'd still see a significant damage reduction for titans against the largest sig radius subcap in the game painted by an optimal subcap support fleet.
Then if the target either uses lower sig ships, skirmish bonuses, or just shoots the huginns it gets better for them from there. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:21:00 -
[22] - Quote
Two step wrote: A possible solution to this is to add a sig radius penalty to triage/siege, which seems like it would be a reasonable thing to do.
That is a good idea. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 22:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
Giant facepalm
I don't know what part of this post to talk about first, so I'll do it in order.
I'm Down wrote: Alright, now I'm going into true ******* mode
This is why your player base has such a horrible connection to you developers. We try to help you and give you massive feedback, and you just **** on everything we do and say so that you can rush in a **** ass patch which I see you're now leaning towards **** ass mechanics once again. I mean, do you even get the point that this game is not spreadsheets online
At what point did you guys think that "omg, this spreadsheet looks good so this idea must be good.
Chill dude. He is interacting with players, that's what this thread is for. His changes have been taking into account concerns by people posting reasonably here.
I'm Down wrote: YOUR new latest greatest idea does nothing at all to address titan blobbing.
Yes, technically no titan nerf will change the fact that 20 titans > 10 titans. Any changes to that are going to have to come from more general mechanic changes, which can be done later. What this change does is reduce the effectiveness of titans to put them more in line with the place CCP wants them from a risk/benefit standpoint.
I'm Down wrote: It doesn't address titans in bulk on a field. It doesn't address tracking issues as range increases. It doesn't address natural titan counters with the 1 small exception that it removed maelstroms from being as useful a tool against capital fleets since they get hammered even harder now. And if you played the game, you'd see how this is a further buff to titans since the counter to carriers supporting titans just got a nerf.. It very weakly addresses the ability of the ship to hit. And then you throw back in the bullshit artificial damage modification with a small tweak even though we've already addressed in mass why this is a horrible idea.
How do you expect the player base to ever get along with you when you make such poor decisions in haste. I mean this is exactly why we have gotten so emo over the years to the point of nearly collapsing your company last fall.
It doesn't fix everything about the game all at once, but it makes a reasonable step to solve a balance problem without breaking more things. It also does it in a timeframe that allows it to get released in the next patch.
The only way this nerfs dreads vs carriers is a slight reduction in DPS that can be mitigated by one or two painters against an un-triaged carrier and the sig radius penalty in triage that Two Step proposed earlier in this thread.
The sig resolution nerf reduces chance to hit, the damage reduction change reduces damage when you do hit. It does the job well and although I don't like how much it makes XL turrets like missiles, that's a drawback I'm able to live with.
I'm Down wrote: I even offered to sit down and have a chat with you in real time free of charge so as to help you along this process which seemed ignored. It's amazing since I'm Literally the most experienced Super Capital FC in game in terms of combat applications and I fly with the most seasoned alliance in terms of Super capitals as well. And that's not even trying to gloat... it's just raw fact.
/o\ I have no words. You've commanded a lot of supercap blobs in your career, but that doesn't automatically mean you are the be all end all of supercap balance knowledge. Do you really think your voice has greater weight here than someone like Shadoo or Elise?
Yes you fly with the most seasoned supercap alliance, but nobody in that alliance thinks you are good at this kind of balance discussion. There's a reason every theorycrafting post you make on our forums garners loud sighs. You have your strengths, but this is not one of them
There is Literally nobody within PL who will read that paragraph and not laugh at you.
I'm Down wrote: I mean jesus christ, make the proper fix or just delay the fix. But stop doing this ass backwards approach.
Next Server patch, Nuke the tracking by half with further changes down the llne and leave it at that. At least it will have some small effect with promises of larger fixes on the way. Then you can go fix your damn tracking formula and make all the appropriate and reasonable sig adjustments there as I've already explained to you how to do.
I agree that a change to the tracking formula is the best solution long term, but that will take an extremely long time to balance and test. This solves a balance problem in a quick but somewhat dirty way that allows the damage reduction to be phased out later as the tracking formula get changed.
:yaay: |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 22:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.
So am I understanding right that this is an overall formula change and not just a bandage applied to titans, in other words, are BS now going to do significantly less damage to frigates and sig tanking ships with their guns? Currently 1400 or 1200 artillery ships are fairly powerful in the amount of alpha they bring to bear on any target they should choose, can we expect BS guns to now suffer the same that XL guns will? Will a very low sig cruiser have its damage mitigated in the same fractal fashion because the new formula is being applied universally to all guns?
It's just for XL guns. Hopefully they'll come up with a solution that can be applied to all guns soon, but that can't make this patch. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 22:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Are you really saying that titans are the only thing preventing Tengu Online? If tengus are a problem change tengus. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 00:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:John Caffeine wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=MisterAl tt1]
Are people actually running x-instinct/halo carriers? I see the theoretical problem, and it's something we may want to look into at some point, but I don't want to do a lot of running around for something that's largely theoretical. We're not now, but I promise you X-instinct using, Haloed carrier will be standard for triage carriers with these changes, and I very much look forward to pwnzoning dreads in 800m sig Pantheon carriers. We're also using dreads to shoot subcaps on a very frequent basis, which works well if you invest a few billion into webbing ships. This will heavily nerf the use of dreads, but we didn't like that shipclass anyway, and not having to worry about dreads killing our triage is well worth the loss of the dreads' combat role. this is why you don't artificially **** with formulas rather than fix problems.
Two Step's idea of a sig radius penalty to triage and siege seems like it would solve that problem easily and effectively. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 12:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: What I'm going to try and sort out today is to have this attribute applied to XL guns *only* when fitted to titans, so dreadnaughts are left alone for now. We might come back to PvE dreadnaughts as a balance concern at a later date, but for the time being and if this works properly, this change will be limited to just titans for now, and only for as long as it takes to fix the tracking formula properly.
Very nice. I had been operating under the assumption that this would be too technically difficult for this release, but if it can be done it would be a very good way of minimizing unintended side effects.
Also loving the mentions of a more general fix down the line. This kind of continued iteration is exactly what a lot of us have been hoping for. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 16:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Greyscale, any chance you can let us know what formula the current iteration uses for the damage reduction? Saves us the effort of reverse engineering it on sisi. :) |
|
|
|